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.

Does neoadjuvant therapy contribute to increased risk in anastomotic leakage of esophageal cancer? A network meta‐analysis

Does Neoadjuvant Therapy Increase the Incidence of Anastomotic Leakage after Anterior Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the risk of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

Safety of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Resectable Cancers: A Meta-Analysis

20. ADDITIONAL NEOADJUVANT IMMUNOTHERAPY DOESN’T INCREASE THE RISK OF ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY: A MULTICENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

Radiation dose does not influence anastomotic complications in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and transhiatal esophagectomy

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer resection: results of a European multicenter study

Radiation-induced injury on surgical margins: a clue to anastomotic leakage after rectal-cancer resection with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy?

The addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy did not increase the risk of developing postoperative anastomotic leakage for ESCC: an analysis from a prospective cohort

Effect of Preoperative Long Course Radiotherapy on Anastomotic Leakage after Low Anterior ;resection for Rectal Cancer：a Meta-analysis

Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Endoluminal Vacuum-Assisted Closure Therapy (EVAC) for Anastomotic Leakage After Oesophagectomy

Op-gast180043 98..106

Comparison of efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant regimens for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis.

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

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of Preoperative Radiotherapy on Anastomotic Leakage and Stenosis after Rectal Cancer Resection: Post Hoc Analysis of A Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Combined with Chemoradiotherapy Vs. Combined with Chemotherapy in Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Different impact of anastomotic leak on long-term recurrence after surgery for rectal vs colonic cancer A systemic review and meta-analysis

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and traditional neoadjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and single-arm and network meta-analysis