Esophagogastric anastomotic leaks are the most feared surgical complications following resection of esophageal cancers. We aimed to develop a therapeutic algorithm for this complication characterized by high morbidity and mortality using our 20 years of experience and the published literature. A total of 354 patients who had undergone an esophagectomy and esophagogastric anastomosis due to esophageal carcinoma were evaluated retrospectively. The incidence for anastomotic leak was 15.5% (n = 90) in the cervical region and 4.2% (n = 264) in the thoracic region (mean: 7.1%). Cervical anastomotic leaks were detected after a mean period of 7.2 days following the procedure. Fourteen patients with cervical leaks were treated conservatively. Four out of 14 patients (28.6%) died due to sepsis and multi-organ failure related to fistula. Thoracic anastomotic leaks were detected after a mean period of 4.7 days following the procedure. Emergency reoperation, resection and reconstruction procedures were performed in one patient. Self-expanding metallic coated stents were placed at the anastomosis region in two patients. A more conservative approach was employed in other patients with thoracic anastomotic leaks. Six of them (46.2%) died due to fistula. General mortality rate was 37.0%, and the duration of hospitalization was 40.0 days for patients with anastomotic leaks. Cervical anastomotic leaks are more common than thoracic anastomotic leaks, but most of them are successfully treated with conservative approaches. Thoracic anastomotic leaks that in the past were related to high mortality rates despite conservative or surgical procedures might be successfully treated nowadays with the use of self-expanding metallic coated stents.

Esophageal perforations are surgical emergencies associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No single strategy has been sufficient to deal with the majority of situations. We aim to postulate a therapeutic algorithm for this complication based on 20 years of experience and also on data from published literature. We performed a retrospective clinical review of 44 patients treated for esophageal perforation at our hospital between January 1989 and May 2008. We reviewed the characteristics of these patients, including age, gender, accompanying diseases, etiology of perforation, diagnosis, location, time interval between perforation and diagnosis, treatment of the perforation, morbidity, hospital mortality, and duration of hospitalization. Perforation occurred in the cervical esophagus in 14 patients (31.8%), thoracic esophagus in 18 patients (40.9%), and abdominal esophagus in 12 patients (27.3%). Management of the esophageal perforation included primary closure in 23 patients (52.3%), resection in 7 patients (15.9%), and nonsurgical therapy in 14 patients (31.8%). In the surgically treated group, the mortality rate was 3 of 30 patients (10%), and 2 of 14 patients (14.3%) in the conservatively managed group. Four of the 14 nonsurgical patients were inserted with covered self-expandable stents. The specific treatment of an esophageal perforation should be selected according to each individual patient. To date, the most effective treatment would appear to be operative management. With improvements in endoscopic procedures, the morbidity and mortality rates of esophageal perforations are significantly decreased. We suggest that minimally invasive techniques for the repair of esophageal perforations will be very important in the future treatment of this condition.

In recent years, thymectomy has become a widespread procedure in the treatment of myasthenia gravis (MG). Likelihood of remission was highest in preoperative mild disease classification (Osserman classification 1, 2A). In absence of thymoma or hyperplasia, there was no relationship between age and gender in remission with thymectomy. In MG treatment, randomized trials that compare conservative treatment with thymectomy have started, recently. As with non-randomized trials, remission with thymectomy in MG treatment was better than conservative treatment with only medication. There are four major methods for the surgical approach: transcervical, minimally invasive, transsternal, and combined transcervical transsternal thymectomy. Transsternal approach with thymectomy is the accepted standard surgical approach for many years. In recent years, the incidence of thymectomy has been increasing with minimally invasive techniques using thoracoscopic and robotic methods. There are not any randomized, controlled studies which are comparing surgical techniques. However, when comparing non-randomized trials, it is seen that minimally invasive thymectomy approaches give similar results to more aggressive approaches.Keywords: Extended thymectomy, follow-up, myasthenia gravis, thoracoscopic thymectomy ÖZ Miyastenia gravis tedavisinde son yıllarda timektomi giderek yaygınlaşan bir prosedür haline geldi. Preoperatif hafif hastalık sınıflaması (Osserman sınıflaması 1, 2A) olanlarda remisyon ihtimali en yüksek olarak gösterildi. Timoma veya hiperplazi yokluğunda timektomi ile remisyon sağlamada yaş ve cinsiyetin ilişkisi gösterilemedi. Miyastenia gravis tedavisinde timektomi ile konservatif tedaviyi karşılatıran randomize çalışmalar yeni yayınlanmaya başlandı. Nonrandomize çalışmalarda olduğu gibi Miyastenia gravis tedavisinde timektomi ile remisyon, sadece ilaçla konservatif tedaviden daha iyi bulundu. Cerrahi yaklaşım için transservikal, minimal invaziv, transsternal ve kombine transservikal transsternal timektomi olmak üzere dört major yöntem bulunmaktadır. Transsternal yaklaşımla timektomi yıllardır kabul gören standart cerrahi yaklaşımdır. Son yıllarda torakoskopik ve robotik yöntemin kullanıldığı minimal invaziv tekniklerle timektomi sıklığı artmaktadır. Cerrahi teknikleri karşılaştıran randomize, kontrollü çalışmalar bulunmamaktadır. Ancak nonrandimize çalışmalar arasındaki karşılaştırmalara bakıldığında minimal invaziv timektomi yaklaşımlarının daha agresif yaklaşımlara benzer sonuçlar verdiği görülmektedir.

This study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was received from patients. A total of 60 patients with ASA I-II status at preanesthetic examination, who had no concomitant disease and who planned to have elective thoracotomy between April 2009 and June 2010 in the Department of Aim: To evaluate the effects of the performance of preemptive epidural analgesia in major thoracotomies on chronic postthoracotomy pain.Materials and methods: A total of 60 patients with ASA I-II status between the ages of 18 and 75 years who planned to have elective thoracotomy were randomized into 3 groups. In all cases, an epidural catheter was placed at the 6th-7th or 7th-8th thoracic intervals, preoperatively. Patients in the control group (n = 20) did not receive epidural analgesics before and during the operation, and preoperative analgesia was provided by remifentanil infusion. In the incision-sensitized group (n = 20), patients had remifentanil infusion preoperatively and 0.1% levobupivacaine (10-15 mL) was given through the epidural catheter 10 min after the surgical incision. Considering that epidural analgesia reached an adequate level 20 min after the injection, the remifentanil infusion was stopped. In the preemptive analgesia group, patients (n = 20) received 10-15 mL of 0.1% levobupivacaine at the 2nd dermatome superior and inferior to the incision dermatome through the epidural catheter for analgesia before anesthesia induction. The pain levels of the patients were evaluated at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6 using a visual analog pain scale.Results: When the pain of the patients in the chronic period were compared, no statistically significant difference was found among all 3 groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion:We suggest that thoracic preemptive epidural analgesia application before the incision is not superior to intraoperative or postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia in prevention or attenuation of chronic postthoracotomy pain after major thoracotomy operations.

No abstract