• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Feasibility of endoscopic management of anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive esophagectomy in the critically ill patient

Feasibility of endoscopic management of anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive esophagectomy in the critically ill patient

Merel Lubbers, MD1, Frans van Workum, MD2, Gijs Berkelmans, MD3, Camiel Rosman, MD, PhD4, Misha Luyer, MD, PhD3, Grard Nieuwenhuijzen, MD, PhD3, Marc van Det, MD, PhD1, Ewout Kouwenhoven, MD, PhD1. 1Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, 2Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, 3Catharina Ziekenhuis, 4Radboud Universitair Medisch Centrum

Introduction: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a life threatening complication after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (tMIE ILE). Several treatment strategies such as conservative treatment, endoscopic treatment and surgery are used. In the case of critical illness due to AL, treatment tends to be more aggressive, often leading to re-operation. The aim of this study was to explore the role of endoscopic treatment for critically ill patients caused by AL after MIE. 

Methods and procedures: All patients underwent tMIE ILE for esophageal cancer in three high-volume hospitals. Patients included in this study developed critical illness after AL, defined as readmission to the ICU for treatment of the AL. Endoscopic treatment (stenting, clipping or suction-drainage) and its success-rate was compared with a surgical approach. Success was defined as clinical improvement after primary treatment. Primary endpoint was the time until oral feeding was resumed. Secondary endpoints were hospital stay and total amount of surgical, endoscopic and radiologic re-interventions.

Results: In this cohort, 83 patients developed AL; 57 of these patients had to be readmitted to the ICU before treatment of the AL. In this group of 57 patients, endoscopic approach was performed as primary treatment in 22 patients (39%) and surgical treatment was used in 35 patients (61%). Baseline variables were similar in both groups. Incidence of empyema and mediastinal fluid collections were similar in both groups (p=0.448 and p=0.502 respectively).

Both in the endoscopic-group and the surgical-group, anastomotic leak was diagnosed on median postoperative day 5 (p=0.604). Median ICU-stay and the success-rate of the primary treatment were similar; median ICU-stay was 16 days and 14 days respectively (p=0.371), success-rate of the treatment 59% and 71% respectively (p=0.336)

Primary and secondary endpoints were comparable for both groups; median time until oral feeding was resumed was 33 days and 31 days respectively (p=0.406), median total hospital stay 45 days and 43 days respectively (p=0.900) and the median amount of re-interventions was 5 in both groups (p=0.326). There was no significant difference in mortality (2 versus 3 patients) (p=0.364). 

Conclusion: In this cohort, endoscopic treatment for AL in the critically ill patient appears to be feasible, with comparable outcomes as a surgical approach. Naturally, treatment of AL requires an individual and patient-tailored approach based on the extend of the AL and the condition of the patient. However, if possible, an endoscopic-approach should be considered, given the minimally invasive character of this treatment and the satisfying outcomes.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 87992

Program Number: S138

Presentation Session: Plenary 2 Session

Presentation Type: Podium

32

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related



Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals