[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Views 639
Citations 0
Invited Commentary
May 12, 2021

Does the Location Matter for the Anastomosis for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Thoracic Surgery Division, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
JAMA Surg. 2021;156(7):610. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1556

The morbidity and mortality associated with anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy remain high, despite improvements in surgical techniques and patient selection.1 The great debate regarding the optimal location (cervical vs intrathoracic) for the esophagogastric anastomosis for esophagectomy has persisted for decades. In 1989, a small prospective randomized clinical trial by Chasseray et al2 demonstrated that cervical anastomosis had a higher anastomotic leak rate (26% vs 4%) than intrathoracic anastomosis after open esophagectomy. In addition, there was no evidence of increased mortality in the intrathoracic anastomosis group who experienced an anastomotic leak, which debunked the myth that intrathoracic anastomotic leaks resulted in a higher mortality rate.2 In another small randomized clinical trial, Ribet et al3 also demonstrated a higher anastomotic leak rate for the cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy. Despite the body of evidence demonstrating a higher anastomotic leak rate for cervical anastomosis, the technique has been used with almost equal frequency with intrathoracic anastomosis with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).4 Until recently, to my knowledge, there was no multicenter, randomized clinical trial to compare the outcomes of intrathoracic and cervical anastomoses after MIE.

Add or change institution
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words