Gastric conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: is conduit salvage feasible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conduit necrosis (CN) typically requires operative reintervention with resection of the conduit and reconstructive surgery. We describe the outcomes of managing CN both surgically and endoscopically with a focus on conduit salvage. A retrospective, single center, cohort study of a prospectively maintained database was performed. All patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction between 01/2010 and 01/2024 were identified following which all patients with a documented history of anastomotic leak were excluded. Patients with clinically impactful CN were allocated to the study group. The remaining patients who had no immediate conduit related complications were allocated to the control group. The outcomes of various treatment options for CN were described and variables associated with CN identified. Overall, of the 1043 patients that were identified, 37 (3.5%) were allocated to the study group and 850 (81.5%) to the control group. Comparing to control group patients, CN was more common in cervical compared to intrathoracic anastomoses (13/135 vs 20/598, P ≤ 0.001) and among recipients of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (8/112 vs 13/506, P = 0.009). On multivariable analysis, peripheral vascular disease, cervical anastomosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independently associated with CN (odds ratio 8.0, 3.2, and 2.5, respectively). In the 397 patients with CN, endoscopic treatment with selfexpanding metal stents (SEMS), debridement and reanastomosis, early conduit replacement, and cervical esophagostomy was used in 14/12/7/4 patients (37.8%/32.4%/18.9%/10.9%). Salvage treatment was successful in 10/14 treated endoscopically with stents (71.4%), 8/12 re-anastomoses (66.7%), 3/7 replaced conduits (42.9%), and 3/4 esophagostomies (75.0%). Overall mortality from CN was 12.8%, with no difference in management approach. In sum, among appropriately selected patients with significant clinically impactful CN post esophagectomy, endoscopic SEMS is an effective means to salvage the conduit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".