A clinical practice review: management strategies and emerging approaches for anastomotic leakage following radical surgery for esophageal cancer

Introduction

Esophageal cancer, a malignancy originating from the epithelial tissues of the esophagus, constitutes a significant global health burden, contributing substantially to cancer-related morbidity and mortality. It accounts for an estimated 1.8 million deaths worldwide (1). Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), the predominant histological subtype, is characterized by complex genetic alterations that contribute to its aggressive behavior (2). Studies have explored the expression profiles of early ESCC using complementary DNA (cDNA) microarrays, identifying genes associated with tumor progression (2). Furthermore, the prognostic relevance of specific genetic markers, such as beta-catenin expression, has been investigated in patients with ESCC (3). Despite these advancements in understanding the molecular underpinnings of ESCC and advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and minimally invasive surgery, the prognosis for patients with esophageal cancer remains guarded, largely due to the disease’s aggressive nature and the inherent technical challenges of surgical management (2,4). Radical esophagectomy, the cornerstone of curative treatment for resectable esophageal cancer, involves the resection of the affected esophageal segment, often accompanied by extensive mediastinal and abdominal lymphadenectomy and reconstruction of the alimentary tract (4). While this procedure offers the potential for long-term survival, its complexity and invasiveness contribute to the high incidence of postoperative complications, reported to occur in almost 30–50% of cases, which significantly impact patient outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and overall survival (OS) (5,6).

Anastomotic leakage, a particularly devastating complication, significantly prolongs hospital stays, increases the risk of life-threatening infections such as sepsis and empyema, and frequently necessitates further invasive interventions (7,8). Vigilance is critical, as early recognition and prompt management can be life-saving. The development of anastomotic leaks is multifactorial, with key contributing factors including poor tissue perfusion, nutritional deficiencies, excessive anastomotic tension, and the effects of preoperative or perioperative radiotherapy (9,10).

Despite advancements in surgical and endoscopic techniques, anastomotic leakage remains a significant challenge, driving ongoing research into improved management strategies. While traditional management involves surgical repair or drainage, recent advances in endoscopic therapies, such as stenting and vacuum therapy, have broadened the therapeutic arsenal (11,12). Meticulous perioperative care, including optimal nutrition, infection control, and hemodynamic support, is equally important to enhance patient recovery and reduce the likelihood of devastating outcomes (13).

This review focuses specifically on anastomotic leakage as the most critical and challenging postoperative complication following radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. While other complications, such as pulmonary or cardiac dysfunction, also contribute to morbidity, anastomotic leakage remains uniquely devastating due to its direct impact on sepsis, prolonged hospitalization, and mortality. The scope of this review includes an analysis of current diagnostic tools, conservative and surgical management strategies, and evolving interventions such as endoscopic therapies, biomaterials, and regenerative techniques. Through this focused lens, the review seeks to address the most effective current and emerging strategies for managing anastomotic leakage, the major limitations in the existing evidence base, and the future directions that hold the most promise for improving outcomes in patients affected by this complication.

Pathophysiology and risk factors for anastomotic leakage

Anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy occurs when the newly formed connection between the esophagus and the gastric conduit or intestinal interposition fails (9,14). This disruption, whether partial or complete, is influenced by several key risk factors. Adequate tissue perfusion is critical for anastomotic healing; therefore, tension on the anastomosis, pre-existing vascular disease, or prior radiotherapy can compromise perfusion, leading to ischemia and dehiscence (9,15). For instance, excessive tension, often due to inadequate mobilization of the gastric conduit, directly increases the risk of ischemia and subsequent leakage (9). Similarly, malnutrition, frequently observed in esophageal cancer patients due to dysphagia and weight loss, significantly impairs wound healing and immune function, as deficiencies like hypoalbuminemia hinder collagen synthesis and increase the risk of infection (16,17).

The choice of esophagectomy (transhiatal, transthoracic, minimally invasive), the location of the anastomosis (cervical vs. intrathoracic), and the surgeon’s expertise critically influence leak rates (14,18). Cervical anastomoses, for example, often exhibit higher leak rates due to contamination from oral secretions and technical challenges, while minimally invasive techniques, though potentially reducing overall morbidity, still require meticulous anastomotic technique to minimize leakage (14,18). Radiation and chemotherapy can compromise vascularity and tissue integrity, diminishing wound healing capacity (8). The timing and intensity of these therapies significantly impact anastomotic healing (8). Furthermore, advanced age, comorbidities, and immunosuppression further weaken the body’s healing response, necessitating careful perioperative management in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Early detection of anastomotic leakage is critical, as delays can lead to severe complications, including mediastinitis, empyema, and sepsis (19). Clinically, patients may present with fever, tachycardia, angina, dyspnea, or signs of systemic infection. Diagnostic tools like contrast esophagography and computed tomography (CT) scans with oral contrast provide high sensitivity in identifying these leaks, enabling prompt intervention and reducing morbidity (14,20).

Initial management and supportive care

Immediate management of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy focuses on stabilizing the patient, controlling sepsis, and minimizing further contamination (7). Given the high risk of sepsis and mediastinitis, prompt initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics is crucial. Empirical coverage should include gram-negative, gram-positive, and anaerobic organisms typically found in gastrointestinal flora (21). In cases of significant hemodynamic instability, intravenous fluid resuscitation and vasopressor support may be required to maintain adequate perfusion and organ function (22).

Gastrointestinal decompression, typically achieved with a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube, aims to minimize mediastinal contamination by diverting gastric and intestinal contents. However, careful placement and monitoring are essential to avoid undue stress on the anastomosis and prevent further disruption. Early nutritional support, crucial for promoting wound healing and immune function, is best achieved through enteral feeding via a jejunostomy tube (23). When enteral feeding is contraindicated, total parenteral nutrition provides essential caloric and protein intake. In select cases where a controlled fistula has formed, and the distal gastrointestinal tract remains functional, cautious enteral feeding beyond the leak site may be considered under close monitoring (23). Image-guided percutaneous drainage, using ultrasound or CT, is essential for controlling local sepsis and preventing further complications (8,21). In cases of complex leaks, particularly those with significant cavity formation, image-guided drainage can be essential for control of sepsis (8,21). This minimally invasive approach helps to evacuate fluid collections, abscesses, and empyema, reducing the need for immediate surgery (4,5). A multidisciplinary approach, integrating hemodynamic support, infection control, nutritional optimization, and effective drainage, is paramount for minimizing morbidity and improving patient outcomes following anastomotic leakage (14).

Surgical interventions

Surgical intervention is indicated when conservative management fails to control anastomotic leakage or the patient’s condition deteriorates. The choice of procedure is guided by the severity and location of the leak, the extent of sepsis, and the patient’s overall status (24). Primary suture repair is considered in cases with a well-defined, localized defect and minimal contamination. However, its success hinges on the viability of surrounding tissues and the absence of significant necrosis. This approach is often reinforced with local tissue flaps, such as pleural or intercostal muscle flaps, to enhance healing and provide additional support (14). The management of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up requires careful consideration of the patient’s overall status and the type of leak (7).

Tissue flap reinforcement, utilizing pedicled intercostal muscle, diaphragmatic, or omental flaps, is an effective strategy for cases requiring additional structural support (14). These flaps enhance local blood supply and reduce the risk of recurrent leakage, particularly when primary repair alone is insufficient (14). Re-do anastomosis, a high-risk procedure involving complete takedown and reconstruction of the anastomosis, is reserved for severe cases where other interventions have failed or are deemed unlikely to succeed. In life-threatening sepsis scenarios, surgical drainage of infected collections, combined with esophageal diversion or esophagostomy creation, is prioritized to control contamination (20). These procedures, while stabilizing critically ill patients, significantly impact QOL and often necessitate later reconstructive surgery. Tailoring surgical interventions to the individual patient’s condition is essential for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications (24). In some cases, especially those with contained leaks, a conservative approach is acceptable.

Endoscopic and other novel approaches

Endoscopic techniques have significantly expanded the treatment options for esophageal anastomotic leaks, offering minimally invasive alternatives that may reduce the need for repeat surgery and shorten hospital stays. Endoscopic stenting, utilizing self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) or fully covered self-expandable plastic stents (SEPS), effectively seals anastomotic defects and mitigates mediastinal contamination (11). SEMS, with their radial expansive force, are generally preferred for larger, complex leaks, while SEPS, offering a lower risk of tissue ingrowth, are useful for smaller, contained leaks (11,25). However, stent migration, tissue erosion, and the need for eventual stent removal remain significant limitations, often requiring additional endoscopic procedures (11,25). In cases where the defect heals successfully, temporary stenting may suffice, though multiple interventions or stent repositioning may be required to achieve optimal outcomes. Treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy requires careful consideration of risk factors and operative treatment (9).

Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) promotes continuous drainage and stimulates granulation tissue formation by placing a sponge connected to a vacuum system at the leak site (11,12). This technique is particularly effective for larger, complex leaks with significant cavity formation, and has demonstrated high success rates (11). However, the need for frequent endoscopic procedures for sponge changes and the potential for patient discomfort present logistical challenges.

Novel biomaterial sealants, including fibrin glues, tissue adhesives, and bioengineered polymers, offer the potential for minimally invasive closure of small, contained leaks. These materials promote tissue adhesion and wound closure by creating a physical barrier and stimulating local tissue integration. However, their long-term efficacy and safety, particularly in the presence of sepsis or significant contamination, require validation in larger clinical trials. As endoscopic and biomaterial-based interventions continue to evolve, they offer valuable alternatives to traditional surgery, with the potential to minimize morbidity and improve recovery for patients with esophageal anastomotic leaks.

Integrated multidisciplinary management for optimal outcomes

The complexity of postoperative complications following radical esophagectomy, particularly anastomotic leakage, necessitates an integrated multidisciplinary approach to optimize patient outcomes (13). This approach is founded on the principle that the synergistic expertise of various specialties surpasses the capabilities of any single discipline. Effective management hinges on seamless communication, coordinated decision-making, and a shared understanding of the patient’s physiological and surgical complexities. Adherence to clinical guidelines is essential for optimal patient outcomes (26).

The foundation of this approach lies in the early and continuous involvement of surgical, gastroenterological, and critical care teams. Surgeons contribute their expertise in operative technique and anatomical considerations, while gastroenterologists provide minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Intensivists manage the systemic sequelae of complications, such as sepsis and organ dysfunction, ensuring hemodynamic stability and optimizing physiological parameters. This collaborative effort allows for timely interventions that address both the local and systemic manifestations of the complication.

Beyond the immediate management of the leak, a comprehensive approach encompasses nutritional support, pain management, and rehabilitation (20). Nutritionists play a vital role in mitigating the catabolic effects of surgery and sepsis, while nurses and allied health professionals ensure meticulous postoperative care and facilitate patient mobilization. This holistic approach, grounded in evidence-based protocols, minimizes morbidity, shortens hospital stays, and improves long-term QOL. The effectiveness of this multidisciplinary model is supported by studies demonstrating reduced complication rates and improved survival in centers with established multidisciplinary teams (14,24,26,27).

Prevention and risk stratification

Prevention of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy begins with a comprehensive preoperative strategy aimed at identifying high-risk patients and optimizing modifiable risk factors (28). A thorough preoperative assessment, incorporating validated risk stratification tools, includes the evaluation of nutritional status, body mass index, comorbidities, and frailty indices (26). Nutritional supplementation, particularly in patients with pre-existing malnutrition, and prehabilitation programs, focusing on exercise and nutritional optimization, have demonstrated potential to enhance functional and metabolic reserves, thereby improving surgical outcomes (26). Optimization of chronic conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, through strict glycemic control, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), through pulmonary rehabilitation and bronchodilator therapy, along with promoting smoking cessation, further reduces perioperative risk. Furthermore, the development of nomograms for risk assessment can aid in predicting outcomes of postoperative anastomotic leakage (10). Prediction models are being developed to predict postoperative anastomotic leakage (19). Locally advanced cancer of the esophagus requires scientific treatment strategies.

Perioperative strategies are centered on minimizing surgical trauma and preserving tissue integrity (29). Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), when performed by experienced surgeons, has shown promise in reducing pulmonary complications and potentially lowering anastomotic leak rates, although ongoing research continues to refine its long-term benefits and identify optimal patient selection criteria (27). Meticulous anastomotic technique, with careful attention to minimizing tension through adequate mobilization of the gastric conduit and ensuring sufficient vascularization via microvascular assessment, is important for preventing leaks. Intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) angiography can be used to assess conduit perfusion and improve anastomotic safety.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols play a crucial role in reducing postoperative complications and expediting patient recovery (28). Strategies such as minimizing preoperative fasting times, implementing goal-directed fluid therapy, and encouraging early mobilization, beginning within hours of surgery, support overall patient stability and reduce the incidence of complications (28). Standardized clinical pathways and checklists, incorporating validated scoring systems for early detection of postoperative complications, facilitate prompt identification of anastomotic leakage, enabling timely intervention and mitigating its impact (13).

Limitations of current management approaches

While advancements in surgical technique, critical care, and endoscopic interventions have improved the short-term management of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy, several significant limitations remain. To start, there is a lack of standardized treatment algorithms across institutions. Management decisions—such as when to choose conservative therapy, endoscopic stenting, or surgical revision—are often based on individual surgical expertise rather than evidence-based protocols. This variability leads to inconsistent outcomes and makes cross-study comparisons difficult. Additionally, much of the evidence supporting novel interventions like EVT, biodegradable stents, and biomaterial sealants stems from small, non-randomized studies or case series. For example, while EVT has shown promising results in observational cohorts, it remains technically demanding, requiring repeated procedures and lacking long-term data on esophageal function and stricture formation.

Furthermore, patient selection criteria for various interventions remain poorly defined. There is no consensus on which patients benefit most from endoscopic versus surgical management, or how factors such as leak size, location (cervical vs. intrathoracic), or timing post-operatively should influence treatment choice. Nutritional support strategies also vary widely, with limited evidence on optimal timing, route (enteral vs. parenteral), and impact on healing. In addition, many of the predictive models or risk stratification tools proposed in recent studies are not yet validated in external cohorts or integrated into clinical practice.

Global applicability is another challenge. Many enhanced recovery protocols and advanced endoscopic tools may not be accessible in resource-limited settings, thus widening the gap in outcomes. Finally, few studies have evaluated the long-term consequences of anastomotic leakage, including its impact on QOL, esophageal function, and cancer recurrence. These knowledge gaps highlight the urgent need for large-scale, multicenter prospective studies, consensus-based clinical guidelines, and personalized management frameworks that account for individual patient risk profiles and resource availability.

Future directions and innovative insights

Technological advancements and continuous research are poised to transform the management of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy, offering innovative solutions to enhance healing and reduce complications. Biodegradable stents, designed to gradually degrade in concert with tissue regeneration, may obviate the risks associated with stent migration and the need for subsequent endoscopic removal. Furthermore, the development of customized stent coatings, incorporating drug-eluting or antibiotic-impregnated designs, holds promise for accelerating tissue healing and reducing the incidence of infection at the anastomotic site.

Tissue engineering represents a transformative paradigm, with the potential to develop bioengineered scaffolds seeded with autologous or allogeneic stem cells to regenerate or replace damaged esophageal segments. This approach offers the prospect of minimizing or eliminating the reliance on traditional anastomoses in carefully selected patients, thereby reducing the incidence of postoperative leaks. Preclinical and early clinical studies are exploring the feasibility and efficacy of these bioengineered constructs.

The integration of predictive models and biomarker-driver diagnostics could revolutionize early detection and personalized intervention strategies. Machine learning algorithms, utilizing high-dimensional datasets derived from clinical, radiological, and laboratory parameters, and biomarker profiling, including inflammatory cytokines and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), may offer real-time insights into anastomotic integrity and predict the likelihood of leakage. Validation of these predictive tools through prospective clinical studies is essential to enable personalized monitoring and targeted prophylactic strategies.

Emerging research into gene therapy and biological modulators seeks to accelerate tissue repair and modulate the local immune response at the anastomotic site. Localized delivery of growth factors or gene-based interventions, such as viral vectors encoding pro-angiogenic or anti-inflammatory factors, may enhance wound healing and reduce the incidence of leakage. While still in early development, these innovative approaches have the potential to redefine the management of surgical complications and significantly improve long-term patient outcomes.

Conclusions

Anastomotic leakage continues to pose a significant and potentially life-threatening complication following radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Its multifactorial etiology, encompassing surgical technique, patient-specific risk factors, and perioperative management, underscores the critical importance of meticulous surgical technique, rigorous patient selection, and vigilant perioperative care. Timely recognition of postoperative leaks, facilitated by a high index of clinical suspicion and supported by advanced diagnostic imaging modalities and endoscopic evaluation, is important for ideal outcomes. Initial management, encompassing hemodynamic stabilization, targeted antibiotic therapy, percutaneous or endoscopic drainage of fluid collections, and aggressive nutritional support, is vital for containing local sepsis and preventing systemic complications.

In cases where conservative management proves inadequate, surgical revision of the anastomosis or advanced endoscopic interventions, such as self-expanding stent placement or EVT, are employed. Novel therapeutic approaches, including biomaterial sealants and tissue-engineered constructs, demonstrate promise but necessitate further validation through large-scale clinical trials. Achieving optimal outcomes in these complex patients relies on a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach that integrates a variety of specialties.

Proactive preventative strategies, grounded in accurate risk stratification using validated scoring systems and comprehensive preoperative optimization protocols, are essential for reducing the incidence of anastomotic leakage. Moving forward, continued innovation in minimally invasive surgical techniques, endoscopic interventions, biomaterials, and regenerative medicines holds the potential to significantly enhance our capacity to prevent and manage this challenging complication. Ultimately, minimizing morbidity and mortality in esophageal cancer surgery will depend on the synergistic application of scientific advances, rigorous clinical research, and dedicated teamwork, all focused on delivering comprehensive, patient-centered care.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Peer Review File: Available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-25-29/prf

Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (No. R01HL157456 and No. R01HL168464 to Y.W., and No. R01HL171495 to Y.F.); and the American Heart Association (No. # 968781 to J.L.).

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-25-29/coif). J.L. reports that this work was supported by the American Heart Association (No. # 968781). Y.F. reports that this work was supported by the National Institute of Health (No. R01HL171495). Y.W. reports that this work was supported by the National Institute of Health (No. R01HL168464 and No. R01HL157456). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Zhang X, Lin P, Zhu ZH, et al. Expression profiles of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by cDNA microarray. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2009;194:23-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Situ DR, Hu Y, Zhu ZH, et al. Prognostic relevance of β-catenin expression in T2-3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:5195-202. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Rahma OE, Greten TF, Duffy A. Locally advanced cancer of the esophagus, current treatment strategies, and future directions. Front Oncol 2012;2:52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Kalata S, Singh B, Graham N, et al. Epidemiology of Postoperative Complications After Esophagectomy: Implications for Management. Ann Thorac Surg 2023;116:1168-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Park SY, Kim DJ, Byun GE. Incidence and risk factors of readmission after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. J Thorac Dis 2019;11:4700-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Famiglietti A, Lazar JF, Henderson H, et al. Management of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up. J Thorac Dis 2020;12:1022-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Hagens ERC, Reijntjes MA, Anderegg MCJ, et al. Risk Factors and Consequences of Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy for Cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2021;112:255-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Ubels S, Verstegen MHP, Rosman C, et al. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: risk factors and operative treatment. Ann Esophagus 2021;4:8. [Crossref]
10. Chen J, Xu J, He J, et al. Development of nomograms predictive of anastomotic leakage in patients before minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. Front Surg 2022;9:1079821. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Scognamiglio P, Reeh M, Melling N, et al. Management of intra-thoracic anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stenting. BMC Surg 2022;22:309. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Turchi MJ, Llanos FL, Ramirez MG, et al. Relay therapy with endovac and endoscopic stents for anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Esophagus 2022;5:20. [Crossref]
13. Sims CR 3rd, Abou Chaar MK, Kerfeld MH, et al. Esophagectomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Initiative Results in Improved Outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2024;117:847-57. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Fabbi M, Hagens ERC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: definitions, diagnostics, and treatment. Dis Esophagus 2021;34:doaa039. [PubMed]
15. Tsalikidis C, Mitsala A, Mentonis VI, et al. Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going? Curr Oncol 2023;30:3111-37. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Na KJ, Kang CH, Kim YR, et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Nutritional Status Between Early and Late Oral Feeding After Esophagectomy: An Open Labeled Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 2025;281:388-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, et al. ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr 2017;36:623-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Shridhar R, Takahashi C, Huston J, et al. Anastomotic leak and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 2018;9:894-902. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Luyao S, Hounai X, Qifeng S, et al. Analysis of risk factors and establishment of a prediction model for postoperative anastomotic leakage of esophageal cancer. Curr Probl Surg 2025;62:101668. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Gritsiuta AI, Esper CJ, Parikh K, et al. Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy: Modern Approaches to Prevention and Diagnosis. Cureus 2025;17:e80091. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Hedrick TL, Kane W. Management of Acute Anastomotic Leaks. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2021;34:400-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Jackson JC, Molena D, Amar D. Evolving Perspectives on Esophagectomy Care: Clinical Update. Anesthesiology 2023;139:868-79. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Weijs TJ, Berkelmans GH, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, et al. Routes for early enteral nutrition after esophagectomy. A systematic review. Clin Nutr 2015;34:1-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Basendowah NS. Different Types of Management for Anastomotic Leak Post Esophagectomy. Cureus 2023;15:e48404. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Freeman RK, Van Woerkom JM, Vyverberg A, et al. Esophageal stent placement for the treatment of spontaneous esophageal perforations. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:194-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Obermannová R, Alsina M, Cervantes A, et al. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022;33:992-1004. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;379:1887-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A Review. JAMA Surg 2017;152:292-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Baba Y, Yoshida N, Shigaki H, et al. Prognostic Impact of Postoperative Complications in 502 Patients With Surgically Resected Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Single-institution Study. Ann Surg 2016;264:305-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]