OA05.4. Consensus-Based Treatment of Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy

Clicks: 21
ID: 325921
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #134 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer – early outcomes and complications Background Recently, an international consensus guideline for management of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy was published in collaboration with the ISDE1. An expert panel formulated 23 evidence-based recommendations for clinical care. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which these guidelines are reflected in clinical practice. Methods For this study, data of the TENTACLE - Esophagus was used. The TENTACLE - Esophagus is an international, retrospective cohort study including patients with AL after esophagectomy between 2010 and 2019. For each guideline recommendation, the number and corresponding percentage of patients whose management was consistent with the recommendation was reported. The primary outcome was adherence to guideline recommendations, defined as the proportion of patients whose medical management was consistent with the recommendations in the guideline. Secondary outcomes were differences in failure to rescue and differences in length of hospital stay compared between patients with management adherent to guideline recommendations and those managed with other strategies. Results Of 1509 patients with AL, 425 patients (28.2%) had local manifestations, 548 patients (36.3%) had intrathoracic manifestations, 145 patients (9.6%) had gastric conduit ischemia, and 390 patients (25.9%) with missing data regarding clinical manifestations. AL was confirmed by computed tomography (CT) in 743 patients (49.2%), by endoscopy in 182 patients (12.1%), and by other modalities in 584 patients (38.7%). Preliminary results show that of the 1118 included patients with AL, 48.9% (208 patients) with local manifestations and 67.3% (369 patients) with intrathoracic manifestations were treated according to the clinical care algorithm. Further analysis is currently being performed and will be ready for presentation at ISDE Kyoto. These results will include analysis on the outcomes of patients being treated in line with guideline recommendations versus patients in which guideline recommendations were not adhered to. Conclusion This study evaluates whether current practice aligns with a very recently published consensus ISDE guideline on management of AL. Preliminary results indicate the majority of patients received treatment according to the clinical care algorithm. Further analysis is currently being performed and final results will be presentable at the ISDE Kyoto meeting.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203967944 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Gijs van Dongen, Irene Krämer, Sander Ubels, Bastiaan Klarenbeek
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.038
URL
https://academic.oup.com/dote/article-pdf/39/Supplement_1/doag077.038/70760271/doag077.038.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.