Endoscopy vs esophagram for routine anastomotic evaluation following McKeown esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background: The diagnostic value of esophagram (EP) for anastomotic evaluation after esophagectomy is limited. Endoscopy (ES) is a promising alternative to EP. Whether ES is superior to EP requires further investigation. Methods and materials: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 246 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent McKeown esophagectomy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between 2022 and 2023. On postoperative day (POD) 7, 107 patients who underwent routine ES for anastomotic evaluation were included in the ES group, while 139 patients who underwent routine EP were included in the EP group. The cutoff date was 1 July 2023. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic efficacy, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of the two examinations for detecting anastomotic leakage (AL) during routine POD 7. Results: During follow-up, 25 cases (10.2%) of AL were confirmed, including 8 (7.5%) cases in the ES group and 17 (12.2%) cases in the EP group ( P = 0.22). Compared to EP, ES had significantly better sensitivity (ES vs. EP: 87.5% vs. 41.2%, P = 0.04) and NPV (99.0% vs. 92.4%, P = 0.03), while comparable specificity (100% vs. 99.2%, P = 1.00) and PPV (100% vs. 87.5%, P = 1.00) were observed. The overall diagnostic accuracy was significantly greater in the ES group (99.1% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.01). Among patients without AL at the first examination, the ES group had a significantly lower rate of post-intake AL than the EP group [1.0% (1/100) vs. 7.6% (10/131), P = 0.03]. Furthermore, the ES group also showed significantly earlier AL diagnosis [median (IQR): 7 (7–10) vs. 11 (9–12) days, P = 0.04] and shorter AL healing time [median (IQR): 14.5 (7.0–31.8) vs. 34 (27.5–41.5) days, P = 0.02] than the EP group. Conclusion: ES might be superior to EP for the routine evaluation of anastomosis after McKeown esophagectomy. Further studies are warranted.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Surgery
Published
2026-07-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/js9.0000000000005547
Primary Topic
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Endoscopy vs esophagram for routine anastomotic evaluation following McKeown esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Hong Yang, Caiyan Fang, Jianmin Wu, Sicong Huang et al.
International Journal of Surgery
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
article

Endoscopy vs esophagram for routine anastomotic evaluation following McKeown esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Hong Yang, Caiyan Fang, Jianmin Wu, Sicong Huang, Beibei Xu, Daofeng Wang, Qianwen Liu, Zhichao Li, Jiyang Chen, Huilin Su, Y Huang, Xiaobin Chen, Weidong Wang, Bin Li
article en

Abstract

Background: The diagnostic value of esophagram (EP) for anastomotic evaluation after esophagectomy is limited. Endoscopy (ES) is a promising alternative to EP. Whether ES is superior to EP requires further investigation. Methods and materials: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 246 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent McKeown esophagectomy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between 2022 and 2023. On postoperative day (POD) 7, 107 patients who underwent routine ES for anastomotic evaluation were included in the ES group, while 139 patients who underwent routine EP were included in the EP group. The cutoff date was 1 July 2023. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic efficacy, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of the two examinations for detecting anastomotic leakage (AL) during routine POD 7. Results: During follow-up, 25 cases (10.2%) of AL were confirmed, including 8 (7.5%) cases in the ES group and 17 (12.2%) cases in the EP group ( P = 0.22). Compared to EP, ES had significantly better sensitivity (ES vs. EP: 87.5% vs. 41.2%, P = 0.04) and NPV (99.0% vs. 92.4%, P = 0.03), while comparable specificity (100% vs. 99.2%, P = 1.00) and PPV (100% vs. 87.5%, P = 1.00) were observed. The overall diagnostic accuracy was significantly greater in the ES group (99.1% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.01). Among patients without AL at the first examination, the ES group had a significantly lower rate of post-intake AL than the EP group [1.0% (1/100) vs. 7.6% (10/131), P = 0.03]. Furthermore, the ES group also showed significantly earlier AL diagnosis [median (IQR): 7 (7–10) vs. 11 (9–12) days, P = 0.04] and shorter AL healing time [median (IQR): 14.5 (7.0–31.8) vs. 34 (27.5–41.5) days, P = 0.02] than the EP group. Conclusion: ES might be superior to EP for the routine evaluation of anastomosis after McKeown esophagectomy. Further studies are warranted.

International Journal of Surgery
Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), Lanzhou University Second Hospital (CN), Henan Cancer Hospital (CN), Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (CN), Lanzhou University (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.