Clinical utility and applicability of the,Esophagus Complication Consensus Group' (ECCG) classification of anastomotic leakage following hybrid Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the leading surgical complication following Ivor-Lewis (IL) esophagectomy. Different treatment options of AL exist but outcome is difficult to compare due to a lack of generally accepted classifications. This retrospectivestudy was conducted to analyze the clinical significance of a recently proposed classification based on the management of AL. A cohort of 954 consecutive patients undergoing hybrid IL esophagectomy (laparoscopy/thoracotomy) was analysed. AL was defined according to the,Esophagus Complication Consensus Group' (ECCG) criteria depending on its treatment: conservative (AL type I), interventional endoscopic (AL type II), and surgical (AL type III). Primary outcome was single or multiple organ failure (Clavien-Dindo IVA/B) associated with AL. Overall morbidity was 63.0% and 8.8% (84/954 patients) developed an AL postoperatively. Three patients (3.5%) had an AL type I, 57 patients (67.9%) an AL type II and 24 patients (28.6%) an AL type III. For patients managed surgically, AL was diagnosed significantly earlier (median days: AL type III: 2 vs AL type II: 6, p < 0.001). Associated organ failure (CD IVA/B) was significantly lower for AL type II as compared to AL type III (21.1% versus 45.8%, p < 0.0001). In-hospital mortality was 3.5% for AL type II and 8.3% for AL type III (p = 0.789). There was no difference for re-admission to ICU and overall length of hospital stay. The proposed ECCG classification is simply to apply and discriminates the post-treatment severity of AL but does not aid to implement a treatment algorithm.