BackgroundAcute esophageal necrosis (AEN) is a rare clinical disorder. Esophageal stenosis or obstruction is one of severe complications, but there are a few reports about surgical treatments. In such a situation, it still remains controversial which to choose, esophagectomy or bypass operation.Case presentationA 61-year-old woman was admitted to the local hospital for septic shock with diabetic ketoacidosis due to necrotizing fasciitis of the right thigh. Three days later, she had hematemesis, and gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed black mucosal coloration throughout the entire esophagus. She was diagnosed as having AEN. Her general condition improved after intensive care, debridement, and treatment with antibiotics and a proton pump inhibitor; the esophageal mucosal color recovered. However, an esophageal stricture developed after 1 month, and the patient underwent gastrostomy to remove an esophageal obstruction after 3 months. She was referred to our hospital for surgical treatment 1 year and 4 months after the occurrence of AEN because of her strong desire for oral intake. Her medical condition was poor, and she could not walk due to generalized muscle weakness. After rehabilitation for 8 months, we performed an esophageal bypass using a gastric conduit via the percutaneous route rather than esophagectomy because of her multiple severe comorbidities including walking difficulty, chronic hepatitis C, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic renal failure. Minor leakage of the esophagogastrostomy occurred and was resolved with conservative treatment. The patient began oral intake on postoperative day 34 and was discharged on day 52.ConclusionEsophageal obstruction after AEN was successfully treated by esophageal bypass using a gastric conduit in a high-risk patient. Because the majority of patients with AEN have multiple severe comorbidities, assessing the medical condition of the patient adequately is important prior to choosing either an esophagectomy or bypass surgery.

Background Previous studies showed that although the risk of thyroid dysfunction (thyroid immune-related adverse events [irAEs]) induced by anti-programmed cell death-1 antibodies (PD-1-Ab) was as low as 2–7% in patients negative for anti-thyroid-antibodies (ATAs) at baseline, it was much higher (30–50%) in patients positive for ATAs. However, whether a similar increase occurs with combination therapy using PD-1-Ab plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 antibody (CTLA-4-Ab) is unknown. Methods A total of 451 patients with malignancies treated with PD-1-Ab, CTLA-4-Ab, or a combination of PD-1-Ab plus CTLA-4-Ab (PD-1/CTLA-4-Abs) were evaluated for ATAs at baseline and for thyroid function every 6 weeks for 24 weeks after treatment initiation, and then observed until the last clinical visit. Results Of the 451 patients, 51 developed thyroid-irAEs after immunotherapy [41 of 416 (9.9%) treated with PD-1-Ab, 0 of 8 (0%) with CTLA-4-Ab, and 10 of 27 (37.0%) with PD-1/CTLA-4-Abs]. The cumulative incidence of thyroid-irAEs was significantly higher in patients who were positive versus negative for ATAs at baseline after both PD-1-Ab [28/87 (32.2%) vs. 13/329 (4.0%), p < 0.001] and PD-1/CTLA-4-Abs [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 4/17 (23.5%), p < 0.05] treatments. The risk of thyroid-irAEs induced by PD-1/CTLA-4Abs, which was significantly higher than that induced by PD-1-Ab, in patients negative for ATAs at baseline was not statistically different from that induced by PD-1-Ab in patients positive for ATAs at baseline. Conclusions This study showed that the incidence of thyroid-irAEs was high and not negligible after PD-1/CTLA-4-Abs treatment even in patients negative for ATAs at baseline.

Aims The docetaxel and cisplatin plus 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) (DCF) regimen is expected to be superior to cisplatin plus 5‐FU for the preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer. However, a high risk of adverse effects, including febrile neutropenia (FN), has been reported. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DCF with prophylactic pegfilgrastim, we conducted a phase II study. Methods The regimen consisted of intravenous administration of docetaxel (70 mg/m2 per day) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2 per day) on day 1 and a continuous infusion of 5‐FU (750 mg/m2 per day) on days 1–5. A single 3.6‐mg dose of pegfilgrastim was given as a subcutaneous injection on day 7 of each cycle. This regimen was repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of three cycles. The primary endpoint was the grade‐2/3 histopathological response rate. Results Thirty‐seven eligible patients were enrolled and received DCF. Thirty‐four patients underwent esophagectomy. Two patients received chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy without surgery. One patient withdrew consent and ended his hospital visit. One patient received additional radiotherapy before surgery. Histopathological responses of grade 3, grade 2, grade 1b, and grade 1a were observed in two (5.4%), 14 (37.8%), 10 (27.0%), and seven (18.9%) patients, respectively, and the primary endpoint was met. Of the 37 eligible patients, 11 (29.7%) developed FN in the first cycle. Conclusions Since the histopathological responses were as expected, DCF with prophylactic pegfilgrastim is considered to be effective as preoperative chemotherapy. However, the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim on day 7 was insufficient to prevent FN.

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical value of a prophylactic minitracheostomy (PMT) in patients undergoing an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and to clarify the indications for a PMT.MethodsNinety-four patients who underwent right transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 2009 and December 2013 were studied. Short surgical outcomes were retrospectively compared between 30 patients at high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who underwent a PMT (PMT group) and 64 patients at standard risk without a PMT (non-PMT group). Furthermore, 12 patients who required a delayed minitracheostomy (DMT) due to postoperative sputum retention were reviewed in detail, and risk factors related to a DMT were also analyzed to assess the indications for a PMT.ResultsPreoperative pulmonary function was lower in the PMT group than in the non-PMT group: FEV1.0 (2.41 vs. 2.68 L, p = 0.035), and the proportion of patients with FEV1.0% <60 (13.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.009). No between-group differences were observed in the proportion of patients who suffered from postoperative pneumonia, atelectasis, or re-intubation due to respiratory failure. Of the 12 patients with a DMT, 11 developed postoperative pneumonia, and three required re-intubation due to severe pneumonia. Multivariate analysis revealed FEV1.0% <70% and vocal cord palsy were independent risk factors related to a DMT.ConclusionA PMT for high-risk patients may prevent an increase in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia and re-intubation. The PMT indications should be expanded for patients with vocal cord palsy or mild obstructive respiratory disturbances.

Compared with PLT, MST might, therefore, reduce postoperative chest pain and offer a better recovery of pulmonary function in patients with esophageal cancer.

Retrosternal reconstruction can be a risk factor for UEDVT. In patients with small width of the retrosternal space, retrosternal reconstruction might be inappropriate.

Background: Gastro-tracheobronchial fistula after esophagectomy is a rare but life-threatening complication associated with high mortality. Several authors reported postoperative management of tracheobronchial fistula. However, treatment is demanding and challenging, and the strategy is still controversial. Case presentation: A 64-year-old man underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy with two-field lymph node dissection and gastric conduit reconstruction by an intrathoracic anastomosis for esophageal cancer at a local hospital in June 2013. After surgery, a gastro-tracheal fistula and a gastro-bronchial fistula of the left main bronchus were diagnosed, and the patient was referred to our hospital for the management of the gastro-tracheobronchial fistula. CT and bronchoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed at our hospital revealed that the gastro-bronchial fistula of the left main bronchus was cured by packing with the omentum from the gastric conduit and the gastro-tracheal fistula located 3 cm above the carina remained open. We concluded that the fistula would not resolve without further surgical procedure. However, such an operation was expected to be difficult and to need much time due to severe adhesion among the gastric conduit and/or trachea, bronchus, lung, and chest wall. Therefore, a two-stage operation was planned for safety and outcome certainty. The first operation was performed to close the fistula in October 2013. The gastric conduit was separated from the trachea and resected; then, the fistula was sutured and covered by intercostal muscle and latissimus dorsi muscle flaps. A month after the first operation, reconstruction with pedunculated jejunum was performed via the percutaneous route. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. Conclusion: If the omentum is not observed between the gastric conduit and the tracheobronchus when a gastrotracheobronchial fistula occurs after esophagectomy, surgeons should perform surgical treatment because conservative treatment is unlikely to cure. During surgery, the use of two types of muscle flaps, such as the intercostal muscle and the latissimus dorsi muscle flaps, is helpful for the closure of gastro-tracheobronchial fistulas.

In gastric tube reconstruction via intrathoracic anastomosis, esophagogastrostomy should be performed above the top of the aortic arch to prevent postoperative DGER and reduce the incidence of reflux esophagitis.