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

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • 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
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 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
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • 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
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development 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
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • 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
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Surgical Technique Influences Perfusion of the Gastric Conduit Used for a Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Surgical Technique Influences Perfusion of the Gastric Conduit Used for a Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

DARMARAJAH VEERAMOOTOO, MB BS MRCS MD, ANGELA C SHORE, PhD, SHAHJEHAN A WAJED, MA BMBCh MChir FRCS. Department of Upper Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom. Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Introduction:
Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) offers a novel strategy for the management of resectable esophago-gastric cancer. However, success of this surgery is highly reliant on fate of the gastric conduit fashioned to restore gastrointestinal continuity. Failure of the conduit is believed to result from ischemia which can be potentially limited by technical modifications. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of technical refinements on conduit perfusion.

Methods:
A prospective study was designed to evaluate the MIE technique in our Unit. This is a three-stage procedure consisting of a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilisation and lymphadenectomy, laparoscopic gastric mobilisation, lymphadenectomy and extra-corporeal fashioning of the gastric conduit with a cervical anastomosis. Delivery of the stomach to the outside can be facilitated by use of a hand-port. The conduit can then be carefully constructed to a measured width of 5cm, followed by laparoscopic assisted trans-mediastinal delivery to the neck. Perfusion, in tissue perfusion unit, was recorded from the serosal surface of the fundus of the stomach by laser Doppler fluximetry. Measurements were taken at every stage of an MIE (Laparoscopy = baseline, exteriorisation of stomach, conduit formation and delivery at neck). A perfusion coefficient measured as: ratio of perfusion at neck over baseline perfusion was used for statistical analysis.

Results:
Sixteen patients were considered for this study. Hand-port and measured conduit technique were used in 8 (cohort A), but not used in the other 8 (cohort B). For the whole cohort at MIE, a significant drop in fundus perfusion is noted once stomach is mobilised and exteriorised (Laparoscopy 539.7±161.6 v outside 207.5±73.7, p=0.0001; Wilcoxon matched-pairs test). Once the conduit is fashioned perfusion drops further (180.7±63.4), but improves at neck level (193.9±66.6). This trend holds true for both cohorts. The mean perfusion coefficient at the neck was 38.0% (range 18.1 to 67.4), i.e. average 62% drop in stomach perfusion. For cohort A, the perfusion coefficient was 45.0±12.6 v 31.1±12.5 for cohort B (p=0.028 – Mann Whitney U Test). There were two cases of simple anastomotic leak (managed conservatively) in this series, one in each cohort, and perfusion coefficient were 41.0 and 41.1 for the two cases respectively.

Conclusions:
Perfusion of the stomach suffers a significant fall once it is fashioned into a conduit. Technical modifications can optimise conduit perfusion. However, a low perfusion coefficient does not always lead to failure of the conduit and optimisation techniques may not prevent simple anastomotic leaks.


Session: Resident/Fellow
Program Number: S117

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals