Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2025

Author Spotlight: Recent Advancements in Reoperative Foregut Surgery
Published on: September 22, 2023
Outcomes of esophagectomy in patients with previous foregut surgery: a matched retrospective cohort study
Agustina A Pontecorvo1, Jorge Cornejo1, Mohammad Alomari1
1Division of Advanced Gastrointestinal and Bariatric Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Background:
Esophagectomy is a challenging procedure indicated for esophageal cancer and complex benign esophageal conditions. The primary aim of this study was to determine the impact of previous foregut surgeries on postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing esophagectomy between March 1st, 2008, and December 17th, 2024. Two groups were identified, patients with previous foregut surgery (PFS) and patients without previous foregut surgery (No-PFS). PFS (N = 37) was matched in a 3:1 ratio to patients with No-PFS (N = 111) by age, gender, race, and smoking status with "nearest neighbor" method. Demographics and perioperative variables were collected and compared between both groups. Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival and freedom from long-term complications, such as anastomotic stricture and paraconduit hernia.
Results:
Of 349 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 37 had PFS. These included 43% anti-reflux procedures, 35% Heller myotomy for achalasia, and 14% bariatric surgeries. Diagnosis of cancer was an indication for esophagectomy in 59.5% of cases. After matching, significant difference was found regarding operative time (PFS: 463 vs No-PFS: 426 min; p = 0.038). No difference was observed in conversions to open, early complications, reinterventions or leak rate (p value > 0.05). In 3 cases, an interposition graft (colon, jejunum) was used as conduit instead of stomach. As regards freedom from late anastomotic stricture, although not statistically significant, a trend toward a lower freedom from anastomotic stricture was observed in PFS group. The survival analysis, limited to patients with esophageal cancer, indicated higher survival rates in the PFS group (p = 0.06).
Conclusions:
PFS does not impact the approach or outcomes of esophagectomy and is safe with no increased risk of complications. Patients with PFS who had indication of esophagectomy for cancer tended to have better survival rates due to earlier detection and lower clinical stages at diagnosis because of more frequent follow-ups.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Esophageal Perforation-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
Clinical Manifestations:
Barrett Esophagus-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
To diagnose Barrett's esophagus, healthcare providers often recommend an endoscopy for those showing symptoms of acid reflux. The procedure...
Esophageal Strictures-II: Clinical Features and Management
Healthcare providers should gather a comprehensive medical history and conduct a physical examination for diagnosis. If esophageal stricture is...
Peptic Ulcer Disease V: Surgical Management and Nursing Care
Surgical Interventions for Peptic Ulcer Disease
Esophageal Strictures-I: Introduction
Etiology
The primary cause of esophageal strictures is long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), accounting for about 70 to 80% of adult cases. Chronic acid reflux can lead to injury and scarring of the esophageal lining, culminating in...
Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:

