[Management of perioperative complications following tumor resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract]. / Management perioperativer Komplikationen nach Tumorresektionen im oberen Gastrointestinaltrakt.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection of tumors of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract represent complex procedures and are still associated with a relevant morbidity and mortality. A targeted preoperative risk analysis and patient selection with consideration of the nutritional status and comorbidities are important in order to reduce the perioperative complication rate. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Anastomotic leaks still remain the most feared surgical complication and in addition to early recognition, immediate initiation of an appropriate therapy are essential. Conservative treatment can be considered for small and adequately drained fistulas as well as in cervical leakages. Indications for surgical reintervention are leaks that occur in the early postoperative course, fulminant defects with diffuse mediastinitis and conduit necrosis. The majority of anastomotic leaks can be successfully managed with minimally invasive endoscopic techniques, e.g. stent placement and endoluminal vacuum therapy. Delayed gastric emptying is frequently observed following esophageal resection and usually shows a satisfactory response to medicinal treatment and endoscopic interventions. The benefits of pyloroplasty in the primary intervention is still a matter of debate. Chylothorax is a rare but serious complication which should initially be managed with conservative measures. CONCLUSIONS: For the successful management of postoperative complications following surgical resection of tumors of the upper GI tract both an interdisciplinary approach and the availability of an appropriate infrastructure with defined algorithms are of paramount importance. Therefore, a concentration of these procedures in specialized centers would be highly desirable.

[Evidence base for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer]. / Evidenzlage zur minimalinvasiven Chirurgie beim Ösophaguskarzinom.

Surgery remains the mainstay of potentially curative treatment of esophageal cancer; however, esophageal resection is still associated with a relevant morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, patients frequently suffer from concomitant comorbidities and present in a reduced nutritional status. The rationale of minimally invasive surgery is the reduction of surgical trauma with subsequent minimization of (pulmonary) complications and mortality without compromising oncological quality. Minimally invasive esophageal resection was established nearly two decades ago and since then some centers worldwide have adopted this approach as the preferred option for surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophageal resection can be safely performed and provides excellent results in experienced hands. Currently, there is only one randomized trial available comparing open and minimally invasive resection. It was demonstrated that the latter significantly reduced pulmonary complications with comparable mortality and oncological outcome. However, in the majority of studies these convincing results could not be confirmed. Reduced blood loss and a shortened hospital stay were shown to be the main advantages of the minimally invasive approach. Due to technical modifications, patient selection and a remarkable heterogeneity of current studies, a final conclusion on the value of minimally invasive esophagectomy is difficult to be drawn. Based on the current evidence, a noncritical use of minimally invasive resection for esophageal cancer cannot be recommended; however, in selected patients and with appropriate expertise this approach is at least comparable to open esophagectomy.

[Surgical management of bevacizumab-associated peritonitis due to perforation]. / Chirurgisches Management der perforationsbedingten Peritonitis im Zusammenhang mit einer Bevacizumab-Therapie.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab (Avastin, Fa. Roche, Genentech) is the first anti-angiogenic agent to be approved for the routine clinical treatment of cancer. Its toxicity profile is different to that of standard chemotherapeutic substances. Despite the rarity of gastrointestinal (GI) perforation in patients treated with bevacizumab, this serious adverse event results in significant morbidity and mortality. It was the aim of this study, based on exemplary cases of the reporting clinic as well as on published experiences, to characterise the specific clinical findings, the extraordinary pathogenesis, and the therapeutic outcome of such cases of peritonitis caused by perforation after antibody treatment. METHODS: Data of all patients with perforation-caused peritonitis due to bevacizumab therapy since its clinical inauguration were sought in i) the database of the reporting clinic (case series), ii) in the published literature for comparison (historical comparative group) and iii) analysed with regard to results of the surgical management (evaluated parameters: rate of anastomotic insufficiency / disturbances of wound healing, morbidity, mortality). RESULTS: Over a time period of 4 years (from 2 / 1 / 2004 to 1 / 31 / 2008), overall 15 patients were found in this study, among whom 4 patients came from the reporting clinic (mean age, 57 years; males : females = 2 : 2). The mean duration of antibody (Ab) treatment until occurrence of the complication was 70 days (range: 8-150 days). Thirteen patients underwent surgical intervention, 2 patients died due to severe peritonitis without any operation. The overall morbidity was 73.3 % (n = 11 / 15), the mortality was 33.3 % (n = 5 / 15). All patients with an anastomosis developed an anastomotic insufficiency (100 %). Wound healing complications occurred in 38.5 % of the subjects (n = 5 / 13). CONCLUSIONS: Peritonitis after GI perforation due to bevacizumab-based Ab treatment needs to be considered as a rare but serious and life-threatening complication. Impairment of wound healing because of the inhibition of angiogenesis is the reason for a different management of GI perforation under these conditions compared with the standard surgical treatment of peritonitis of other causes. In particular, it is recommended to avoid primary anastomosis and to prefer application of an intestinal stoma.