Abstract:Abstract Objective The anastomotic leak (AL) is greatly concerned in the clinical pathway of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with esophagectomy. This retrospective study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of AL between the ERAS protocol and conventional care in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. The strategy for improving the safety of ERAS was explored. Methods The clinical data and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma who received esophagectomy with esophagogastric anastomosis and experienced a postoperative AL from January 2018 to August 2023. The “Non Tube Non Fasting” edition was implemented in the ERAS group. Results 33 ERAS and 141 conventional patients experienced an AL in 489 ERAS and 1424 conventional patients with esophagectomy. The incidence of AL was significantly lower in the ERAS group (6.7%, 33/489) than in the conventional group (9.9%, 141/1424) (P<0.05). AL rate had no significant differences in the anastomotic sites between the two groups: cervical region (7.0%, 31/443 vs. 10.1%, 126/1250) and intrathoracic region (4.3%, 2/46 vs. 8.6%, 15/174) (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the time-related AL between the two groups: delayed AL (39.4%, 13/33 vs. 54.6%, 77/141) and AL after planned discharge (24.2%, 8/33 vs. 23.4%, 33/141) (P>0.05). 164 patients received endoscopy and presented no significant differences in the average length of leakage between the two groups (5.7±3.8mm vs. 6.1±4.6mm, P>0.05). The comparison of the incidence of the most common early clinical manifestations showed no significant differences between the two groups: cervical wound infection (24.2%, 8/33 vs. 23.4%, 33/141), tachyarrhythmia (93.9%, 31/33 vs. 87.2%, 123/141), fever beyond 38°C (87.9%, 29/33 vs. 91.7%, 135/141), leukocytosis (81.8%, 27/33 vs. 89.4%, 126/141), cervical subcutaneous emphysema (42.4%, 14/33 vs. 41.1%, 58/141), purulent drainage (6.1%, 2/33 vs. 19.1%, 27/141), dyspnea (21.2%, 7/33 vs. 31.9%, 45/141), and right pneumothorax (54.5%, 18/33 vs. 50.4%, 71/141) (P>0.05). The incidences of the time-related early alarm signals were not significantly different between the two groups: within 3 days after surgery (100%, 33/33 vs. 95.7%, 135/141), during postoperative 4 days to 7 days (0%, 0/33 vs. 3.5%, 5/141), and after postoperative 7 days (0%, 0/33 vs. 0.7%, 1/141) (P>0.05). The 30-day mortality was significantly higher in the ERAS group than in the conventional group, and there were no differences in the other outcomes between the two groups (Table). Conclusion The ERAS protocol does not deteriorate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of AL compared with conventional care in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Improving the identification of delayed AL and the AL-associated mortality can enhance the safety of ERAS.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage in colonic procedures within an ERAS‐protocol. A retrospective cohort study from the Swedish part of the international ERAS‐database

Risk Factors Associated with Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Cancer

The impact of anastomotic leakage characteristics on the occurrence of anastomotic stenosis after colorectal resection, a retrospective cohort study

Outcomes based on risk assessment of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Low Anterior Resection Without Diversional Stomas*

Risk and early predictive factors of anastomotic leakage in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

[Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer].

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer (RALAR study): A nationwide retrospective study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network Collaborative Group

Risk factors of anastomotic leak in colorectal cancer: a multicentric study in a Latin American country

321. ANASTOMOTIC LEAK WITH ENHANCED RECOVERY PROTOCOL VERSUS CONVENTIONAL CARE AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CANCER: CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES

Preoperative risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage after colectomy for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Very Early Colorectal Anastomotic Leakage Within 5 Post-operative Days: a More Severe Subtype Needs Relaparatomy

Risk factors and outcomes for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a single-institution analysis of 1576 patients

Anastomotic leakage following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: A clinical cohort study

Risk Factors of Symptomatic Anastomotic Leakage and Its Impacts on a Long-Term Survival after Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: a Retrospective Single-Center Study.

Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after middle and low rectal cancer resection without diverting stoma: a retrospective study of 319 consecutive patients

Male sex and history of ischemic heart disease are major risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer

Risk Factors for Postoperative Major Morbidity, Anastomotic Leakage, Re-Surgery and Mortality in Patients with Colonic Perforation

Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic bile leakage in hepatic resection with bilioenteric reconstruction - A international multicenter study

A 10-year experience with anastomotic leaks in upper gastrointestinal surgery–Retrospective cohort study

Physiological changes after colorectal surgery suggest that anastomotic leakage is an early event: a retrospective cohort study