Esophageal Replacement for Caustic Stricture-A Brief Review
Authored by Abdelkader Boukerrouche
Abstract
Multi-disciplinary management, early diagnosis and
treatment are the keys of success in patients with digestive severe
caustic injury. Endoscopic dilations are the first treatment of
esophageal stricture .Reconstructive surgery is an alternative option
when the dilatations fail and which the objective is to restore the gut
continuity and swallowing function with acceptable mortality and
morbidity. Gastric and colon reconstruction are the two most used
surgical procedures however the choice of procedure is based on anatomic
conditions of patient and the surgeon experience. Sub strnal route and
posterior mediastinum are the most employed approaches. The operative
mortality has been increasingly decreased however the morbidity is still
slightly higher. In this brief report, we review the preoperative
assessment choice of graft organ, route of reconstruction and surgical
outcome.
Keywords: Caustic stricture; Reconstructive surgery; Surgical> outcomeIntroduction
Digestive injury and complications resulting from
caustic ingestion is the most challenging clinical situations
encountered in gastroenterology. The commonest chemicals implicated in
gastrointestinal caustic injury are alkaline and acid agents. The
caustic ingestion is voluntarily and in suicidal intent in the most
situations in adult .In fact, successful management of these patients
requires multidisciplinary therapeutic approach including psychiatric
support. Early diagnosis and adequate treatment are the keys of success
particularly in severe injury which can lead to death resulted from
complications [1,2].
Ct scan abdomino-thoracic has an important value to diagnose and
precise the trans-mural character of the esophageal lesion thus reducing
excessive esophageal excision and digestive complications. Stricture
formation is inevitable in some cases and the first treatment of this
stricture is the dilations. Every effort should be made to retain the
native esophagus and reconstructive surgery is required for
ineffectiveness, complications or lack of the dilations. The objective
of surgery is to establish both digestive continuity and swallowing
function. Establish the gut continuity needs the use of an abdominal
digestive organ. The time of surgery for caustic stricture is still
under controversy. However authors suggest that the most beneficial time
for surgery is not less than 3 months for the esophagus and 6 months
for the pharynx [3].
Despite the reduction in operative mortality, the morbidity rate is
still high. The accuracy of the surgical technique and the experiences
of surgeon are the most important factors that may impact outcome in
esophageal reconstructive surgery.
Preoperative evaluation
Preoperative colonoscopy is recommended to explore
colon in patient for whom a colonic interposition was planned.
Mesenteric angiography is recommended for patient older than 60 years
and for patient with prior intestinal resection or peripheral vascular
disease. Angiography is very was helpful in outlining the vascular
arcade of the intestinal segment to be interposed in patient who had
previous colonic resection. Patients candidate for esophageal surgery
are at high risk to develop malnutrition. Therefore the preoperative
evaluation of the nutritional status of these patients is primordial.
Poor nutritional status is associated with high rate of postoperative
complications. The nutritional improvement of patient prior to surgery
is highly recommended and peri-operative introduction of nutritional
supports have a direct impact on postoperative results [4,5].
Both parenteral and enteral nutrition can be used however the enteral
nutrition is the preferred one to treat malnutrition and to improve
patient nutritional status. The mechanical bowel preparation is so
performed 48 hours before time of surgery.
Choice of replacement organs
The Decision of which organ to use for esophageal
reconstruction is based on multiple factors: esophagus disease, length
of reconstruction, digestive organ available and surgeon experience and
preference. Stomach, colon and jejunum are used to restore digestive
continuity after esophagectomy or to bypass malignant and benign
esophageal stricture.
Jejunal interposition is seldom used because of the
difficulty for operation since blood vessels of jejunum are too thin and
easier to be affected after anastomosis. Furthermore, the jejunum is
fragile to the erosion of acid in a long run, so the jejunum should not
be the first choice. Therefore the best indication for free jejunal
graft is the reconstruction of the cervical esophageal portion .Some
authors considered that gastric interposition was the procedure of
choice to establish digestive continuity for patient with both benign
and malignant esophageal disease [6-9].
The gastric reconstruction is widely employed because of its simplicity
and it requires less time to achieve the procedure as compared to colon
reconstruction. However, stomach has the disadvantages of long term
gastro esophageal reflux which can lead to complications such esophageal
ulceration and anastomotic stenosis [10].
In case of diffused injuries with pharyngo-esophageal stenosis, the
stomach is not sufficiently long to reach the basis of the tongue in
order to perform a pharyngoplasty. In other hand, the stomach is often
injured during massive caustic ingestion and its use as an esophageal
substitute is often impossible.
The colon is the first digestive organ used to
replace diseased esophagus and many authors have suggested that the
colon is the best conduit to construct the esophagus and to restore
swallowing function because mainly of an increased incidence of
aspiration and reflux with gastric conduit [11-19].
Preference of authors who the colon reconstruction lies on the anatomic
and physiologic features of colon , including its relatively straight
mesentery, increased length that can be mobilized on its vascular
pedicle, its low incidence of disease, its resistance to chronic gastric
reflux and the long-term good functional results of colon
reconstruction. However the completion of colon reconstruction requires
more time to achieve the procedure as compared to gastric
reconstruction. Both right and left colon can be used however the left
colon is more preferable and this preference lies on the
near-invariability of the left colonic artery (which has been present in
all the patients of our series except in one patient, it had too
reduced size and unusable) in contrast with the vascular pattern of the
right colon and its smaller lumen which matches perfectively with the
esophageal lumen. Isoperistaltique left colonic graft based on the left
colic artery is our first choice in our institution. When performed by
experienced surgeons, substernal left isioperistaltic colon
reconstruction is the surgical procedure of choice to reconstruct the
scARGHed esophagus with low mortality, acceptable morbidity and good
functional results.
The route of reconstruction
During esophageal reconstruction, there are three
placement sites of graft namely the posterior mediastinum, the
substernal tunnel and the subcutaneous space. The subcutaneous route is
the longest and has strong angulation at its cervical and abdominal
extremity, so this route is at high risk of graft necrosis. As reported,
the high incidence of graft necrosis associated with the subcutaneous
route suggests that only when other routes are not available or
suitable; the subcutaneous route should be used [20].
The posterior mediastinum and the substernal route are the two most
commonly route used in esophageal reconstruction. The posterior
mediastinum is the shortest and most direct route, thereby relaxing
tension to the cervical anastomosissite and reducing thus the kinking
and twisting risk of graft vascular pedicle [21].
The use of the posterior mediastinum needs the ablation of the native
esophagus. In some situations, the access to the posterior mediastinum
is difficult ortechnically not possible [22].
This route also has a high rate of mortality if graft necrosis or
anastomotic leakage occurs, and it is naturally not indicated for
palliative cases because the posterior mediastinum is a tumor bed.
The disadvantages of the posterior mediastinal route have prompted some surgeons to advocate the substernal approach [23].
The substernal route has been an alternative for delayed esophageal
reconstruction or when access to the posterior mediastinum is difficult
or technically not possible [22,23].
It is easy to achieve the substernal route without need to thoracic
approach. Substernal route is an ideal indication for esophageal
palliative surgery. This route is widely employed in caustic stricture
because the scARGHed esophagus is often left in place and its ablation
is associated with high risk of operative complications. The substernal
route has a biggest disadvantage of potential risk of compression of the
graft at the thoracic inlet leading mechanical graft ischemia. To
ensure there is no risk of compression, enlarging the thoracic inlet by
inlet by removing the left half of manubrium and internal third of
clavicle is highly suggested when the substernal approach is considered [9,14,24-27].
This procedure allows to easy access to the left internal thoracic
vessels which can be useful for supercharge of graft by performing
microvessel anastomosis.
The posterior mediastinal and retrosternal routes are associated with similar rates of immediate postoperative complications [28].
Compared to posterior mediastinum, the substernal route is associated
with a slightly higher rate of cervical anastomotic leak related
partially to the compression of the graft at the level of thoracic
inlet. However, the opening of the thoracic inlet may reduce the
incidence of cervical leak [29] and its enlargement is suggested by many surgeons performing esophageal substernal reconstruction [9,24-27,29-31].
Regarding to functional results, both posterior mediastinal and
retrosternal routes are associated with similar long-term outcomes [28].
The posterior mediastinum is preferred for immediate reconstruction
after esophagectomy and the substernal route for delayed reconstruction
.However the selection of the pull- up route should be based on the
nature of disease, benign or malignant and the functional aspect.
Regardless of the route used for reconstruction, it is important to take
care of checking constantly the position of the graft vessels to ensure
there is no mechanical compression that may impair the vascular supply
of the graft, and to select a graft with sufficient length avoiding thus
tension at the anastomotic site.
In our institution, we use the substernal approach
for esophageal malignant conditions considering the possibility of
médiastinal recurrence and for caustic stricture when the diseased
esophagus is left in place. However, when using the substernal approach,
we feel it is essential to enlarge the thoracic inlet by removing the
left half of the manubrium and the sternal head of the left clavicle to
ensure there is no compression on the interposed grafted . Although and
when necessary the excision should be extended to the medial end of the
first and second rib in order to perform a vascular supercharge of the
graft.
Mortality and Morbidity
The mortality for esophageal reconstructive surgery
was increasingly improved over time and the decrease of mortality rate
was related to operative technique improvement and anaesthetic progress.
The main cause of death was graft necrosis, followed by sepsis and
adult respiratory distress syndrome [21,32-35].
Regarding to pulmonary complications, the incidence has been recently
decreased by improvements in preoperative management. The most severe
complication is the graft necrosis which is associated with high rate of
death in absence of early diagnosis and adequate management. This
disastrous complication is more frequent after colon interposition and
the incidence of necrosis in gastric and colonic reconstructions was 1%
and 2.4 respectively [17,20,36-50].
Compared to gastric interposition, colon reconstruction is surgical
procedure with slightly high risk of graft necrosis. The difficulty is
how to complete further digestive re-reconstruction which requires a
panel of complex surgical procedures. The precautions are the rule to
prevent graft necrosis, so meticulous dissection, selection of an
optimal graft and avoiding twist by checking the position of the graft
vessels are highly recommended. In other hand, cervical leakage is the
most common complication encountered in esophageal reconstruction
surgery and is comparable in both gastric and colon reconstruction [11-17,36-50]. Its incidence varied largely in published reports [36-51].
The leakage heals spontaneously and surgery is exceptionally needed.
Many factors influence the occurrence of leakage however the most
important factor is the poor nutritional status of patient which impacts
negatively the anastomotic healing process .Therefore improving
nutritional conditions may reduce the risk to develop anastomotic
leakage. Anastomotic stricture was less observed than leakage and high
percentage of stricture resulted of healed leakage [15,21,32,33,36,39,40,42,44,48-50,52-54].
The anastomotic stricture should be treated conservatively and the
first treatment is endoscopic balloon dilatation. Therefore the surgery
is indicated after lack of dilatation. The main late complication of
colonic interposition is the redundancy of the interposed colon graft [9,32,36,39,44,48,50].
Redundancy leads to retention of food and liquid in the graft, causing
dysphagia, regurgitation and nocturnal aspiration and surgery is
frequently needed to treat redundancy
Conclusion
The most severe caustic injuries are caused by Strong
acid or alkali ingestion especially in suicide attempts. The early
endoscopic evaluation of patients provides accurate diagnosis and permit
to define an appropriate therapeutic strategy to prevent complications
(early operation). The dilations constitute the first treatment of
esophageal stricture. Esophageal reconstructive surgery is indicated
when stricture is so severe and after failure of dilations. The goal of
this surgery is to restore digestive continuity and good swallowing
function with acceptable mortality and morbidity. Both gastric and colon
reconstruction procedures can be used to establish digestive continuity
after esophagectomy or to bypass diseased esophagus .The selection of
the surgical procedure essentially depends on the anatomic conditions of
patient and the surgeon preference.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have conflict of interests.
To Know More About Advanced Research in Gastroenterology &
Hepatology Journal
click on:
https://juniperpublishers.com/argh/index.php
https://juniperpublishers.com/argh/index.php
Comments
Post a Comment