Skip to main content
Log in

Management perioperativer Komplikationen nach Tumorresektionen im oberen Gastrointestinaltrakt

Management of perioperative complications following tumor resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Tumorresektionen im Bereich des oberen Gastrointestinaltraktes stellen anspruchsvolle Eingriffe dar, die unverändert mit einer relevanten Morbidität und Mortalität assoziiert sind. Zur Reduktion der perioperativen Komplikationsrate ist eine gezielte präoperative Risikoanalyse und Patientenselektion unter Berücksichtigung des Ernährungszustandes und der Komorbiditäten wichtig.

Ergebnisse und Diskussion

Die Anastomoseninsuffizienz zählt zu den häufigsten chirurgischen Komplikationen und erfordert neben einer frühzeitigen Diagnose die umgehende Einleitung einer adäquaten Therapie. Ein rein konservatives Vorgehen ist bei kleinen, gut drainierten Insuffizienzen sowie bei zervikalen Leckagen möglich. Die chirurgische Intervention hat ihren Stellenwert bei Leckagen im frühen postoperativen Verlauf, bei ausgedehnten Defekten mit diffuser Mediastinitis sowie bei Interponatnekrosen. Die Mehrzahl der Leckagen lässt sich in der heutigen Zeit durch minimal-invasive endoskopische Techniken, wie die Stentimplantation und die endoluminale Vakuumtherapie, erfolgreich behandeln. Die gastrale Entleerungsstörung nach Ösophagusresektion stellt ein häufiges Problem dar, welches sich durch eine medikamentöse und endoskopische Intervention gut beherrschen lässt. Der Nutzen einer Pyloroplastik im Rahmen des Primäreingriffes ist umstritten. Der Chylothorax ist eine seltene, aber ernsthafte Komplikation. Bei der primären Behandlung sollte konservativen Therapiekonzepten der Vorzug gegeben werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Für das erfolgreiche Management postoperativer Komplikationen sind eine fachübergreifende enge Zusammenarbeit sowie das Vorhandensein einer geeigneten Infrastruktur mit festen Algorithmen von entscheidender Bedeutung. Aus diesen Gründen ist eine Konzentration solcher Eingriffe in spezialisierten Zentren wünschenswert.

Abstract

Background

Surgical resection of tumors of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract represent complex procedures and are still associated with a relevant morbidity and mortality. A targeted preoperative risk analysis and patient selection with consideration of the nutritional status and comorbidities are important in order to reduce the perioperative complication rate.

Results and discussion

Anastomotic leaks still remain the most feared surgical complication and in addition to early recognition, immediate initiation of an appropriate therapy are essential. Conservative treatment can be considered for small and adequately drained fistulas as well as in cervical leakages. Indications for surgical reintervention are leaks that occur in the early postoperative course, fulminant defects with diffuse mediastinitis and conduit necrosis. The majority of anastomotic leaks can be successfully managed with minimally invasive endoscopic techniques, e.g. stent placement and endoluminal vacuum therapy. Delayed gastric emptying is frequently observed following esophageal resection and usually shows a satisfactory response to medicinal treatment and endoscopic interventions. The benefits of pyloroplasty in the primary intervention is still a matter of debate. Chylothorax is a rare but serious complication which should initially be managed with conservative measures.

Conclusions

For the successful management of postoperative complications following surgical resection of tumors of the upper GI tract both an interdisciplinary approach and the availability of an appropriate infrastructure with defined algorithms are of paramount importance. Therefore, a concentration of these procedures in specialized centers would be highly desirable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Aminian A, Panahi N, Mirsharifi R et al (2011) Predictors and outcome of cervical anastomotic leakage after esophageal cancer surgery. J Cancer Res Ther 7:448–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antonoff MB, Puri V, Meyers BF et al (2014) Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better? Ann Thorac Surg 97:1950–1957

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arya S, Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A et al (2015) The impact of pyloric drainage on clinical outcome following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Dis Esophagus 28:326–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Benedix F, Lippert H, Meyer F (2012) Etiology, diagnosis and treatment of lymphocutaneous fistulas, chylascites and chylothorax as infrequent but serious complications following surgical procedures. Zentralbl Chir 137:580–586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Boeckel PG, Sijbring A, Vleggaar FP et al (2011) Systematic review: temporary stent placement for benign rupture or anastomotic leak of the oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 33:1292–1301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brangewitz M, Voigtländer T, Helfritz FA et al (2013) Endoscopic closure of esophageal intrathoracic leaks: stent versus endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, a retrospective analysis. Endoscopy 45:433–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chalret du Rieu M, Baulieux J, Rode A et al (2011) Management of postoperative chylothorax. J Visc Surg 148:e346–e352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen KN (2014) Managing complications I: leaks, strictures, emptying, reflux, chylothorax. J Thorac Dis 6(Suppl 3):S355–S363

    Google Scholar 

  9. Choh CT, Khan OA, Rychlik IJ et al (2012) Does ligation of the thoracic duct during oesophagectomy reduce the incidence of post-operative chylothorax? Int J Surg 10:203–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Choh CT, Rychlik IJ, McManus K et al (2014) Is early surgical management of chylothorax following oesophagectomy beneficial? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 19:117–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Collard JM, Romagnoli R, Otte JB et al (1999) Erythromycin enhances early postoperative contractility of the denervated whole stomach as an esophageal substitute. Ann Surg 229:337–343

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dasari BV, Neely D, Kennedy A et al (2014) The role of esophageal stents in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and benign esophageal perforations. Ann Surg 259:852–860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Leyn P, Coosemans W, Lerut T (1992) Early and late functional results in patients with intrathoracic gastric replacement after oesophagectomy for carcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 6:79–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Doerr CH, Miller DL, Ryu JH (2001) Chylothorax. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 22:617–626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Donington JS (2006) Functional conduit disorders after esophagectomy. Thorac Surg Clin 16:53–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dougenis D, Walker WS, Cameron EW et al (1992) Management of chylothorax complicating extensive esophageal resection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 174:501–506

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaur P, Swanson SJ (2014) Should we continue to drain the pylorus in patients undergoing an esophagectomy? Dis Esophagus 27:568–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gómez-Caro AA, Moradiellos Diez FJ, Marrón CF et al (2005) Conservative management of postsurgical chylothorax with octreotide. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 13:222–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hölscher AH, Fetzner UK, Bludau M et al (2011) Complications and management of complications in oesophageal surgery. Zentralbl Chir 136:213–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Humphrey CS, Johnston D, Walker BE et al (1972) Incidence of dumping after truncal and selective vagotomy with pyloroplasty and highly selective vagotomy without drainage procedure. Br Med J 3:785–788

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jensen EH, Weiss CA 3rd (2006) Management of chylous ascites after laparoscopic cholecystectomy using minimally invasive techniques: a case report and literature review. Am Surg 72:60–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross P Jr et al (2013) Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thorac Surg 96:1919–1926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lanuti M, de Delva PE, Wright CD et al (2007) Post-esophagectomy gastric outlet obstruction: role of pyloromyotomy and management with endoscopic pyloric dilatation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31:149–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Loske G, Schorsch T, Müller C (2011) Intraluminal and intracavitary vacuum therapy for esophageal leakage: a new endoscopic minimally invasive approach. Endoscopy 43:540–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Low DE (2011) Diagnosis and management of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1319–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Poghosyan T, Gaujoux S, Chirica M et al (2011) Functional disorders and quality of life after esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction for cancer. J Visc Surg 148:e327–e335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schorsch T, Müller C, Loske G (2014) Endoscopic vacuum therapy of perforations and anastomotic insufficiency of the esophagus. Chirurg 85:1081–1093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schubert D, Dalicho S, Flohr L et al (2012) Management of postoperative complications following esophagectomy. Chirurg 83:712–718

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Benedix.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

F. Benedix, S.F. Dalicho, B. Garlipp, H. Ptok, J. Arend und C. Bruns geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen und Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benedix, F., Dalicho, S., Garlipp, B. et al. Management perioperativer Komplikationen nach Tumorresektionen im oberen Gastrointestinaltrakt. Chirurg 86, 1023–1028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-015-0081-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-015-0081-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation