Gastric Tube Reconstruction with Superdrainage Using Indocyanine Green Fluorescence During Esophagectomy

doi:10.21873/invivo.11163

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Flow assessment of the re-anastomosed vessel is another key component to salvage the gastric conduit. The present study and two previous studies [ 12 , 14 ] used the ICG fluorescence imaging technique during surgery to ensure the adequate perfusion of the gastric conduit and the patency of the reanastomosed vessels after vascular reconstruction. Alternatively, two other studies used the transit time ultrasound [ 11 ] and coronary blood flow measuring instruments [ 15 ] to evaluate the vascular patency during surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoring the perfusion of accidentally transected right gastroepiploic vessels during gastric conduit harvest for esophagectomy using microvascular anastomosis: a case report and literature review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Esophagectomy remains the standard treatment for esophageal cancer or esophagogastric junction cancer. The stomach, or the gastric conduit, is currently the most commonly used substitute for reconstruction instead of the jejunum or the colon. Preservation of the right gastric and the right gastroepiploic vessels is a vital step to maintain an adequate perfusion of the gastric conduit. Compromise of these vessels, especially the right gastroepiploic artery, might result in ischemia or necrosis of the conduit. Replacement of the gastric conduit with jejunal or colonic interposition is reported when a devastating accident occurs; however, the latter procedure requires a more extensive dissection and multiple anastomosis. Case presentation A 61-year-old male with a lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (cT3N1 M0) who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation with a partial response. He underwent esophagectomy with a gastric conduit reconstruction. However, the right gastroepiploic artery was accidentally transected during harvesting the gastric conduit, and the complication was identified during the pull-up phase. An end-to-end primary anastomosis was performed by the plastic surgeon under microscopy, and perfusion of the conduit was evaluated by the ICG scope, which revealed adequate vascularization of the whole conduit. We continued the reconstruction with the revascularized gastric conduit according to the perfusion test result. Although the patient developed minor postoperative leakage of the esophagogastrostomy, it was controlled with conservative drainage and antibiotic administration. Computed tomography also demonstrated fully enhanced gastric conduit. The patient resumed oral intake smoothly later without complications and was discharged at postoperative day 43. Conclusion Although the incidence of vascular compromise during harvesting of the gastric conduit is rare, the risk of conduit ischemia is worrisome whenever it happens. Regarding to our presented case, with the prompt identification of the injury, expertized vascular reconstruction, and a practical intraoperative evaluation of the perfusion, a restored gastric conduit could be applied for reconstruction instead of converting to more complicated procedures.

show abstract