Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 13;37(3):1838–1845. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09695-9

Table 2.

Patient characteristics of the study cohort, stratified according to completion of postoperative upper gastrointestinal contrast study

N (%) All patients Postop upper GI contrast study Incomplete upper GI contrast study*
No. of patients 119 (100) 112 (94.1) 7 (5.9)
 Virginia mason medical center 42 (35.3) 42 (37.5) 0 (0)
 Karolinska university hospital 77 (64.7) 70 (62.5) 7 (100)
Median age (IQR) 69 (61–74) 69 (61–74) 74 (64–77)
 Gender
  Male 97 (81.5) 90 (80.4) 7 (100)
  Female 22 (18.5) 22 (19.6) 0 (0)
Indication for esophagectomy
 Esophageal cancer 117 (98.3) 110 (98.2) 7 (100)
 Achalasia 1 (0.8) 1 (0.9) 0 (0)
 Perforation/ischemia 1 (0.8) 1 (0.9) 0 (0)
Esophagectomy approach
 Thoracoabdominal 2-stage (Ivor Lewis) 66 (55.5) 64 (57.1) 2 (28.6)
 Thoracoabdominal 3-stage (McKeown) 38 (31.9) 35 (31.3) 3 (42.9)
 Transhiatal esophagectomy 13 (10.9) 11 (9.8) 2 (28.6)
 Left thoracoabdominal 2 (1.7) 2 (1.8) 0 (0)
Surgical technique
 Open technique 28 (23.5) 27 (24.1) 1 (14.3)
 Minimally invasive technique 91 (76.5) 85 (75.9) 6 (85.7)
Anastomosis level
 Thoracic 70 (58.8) 68 (60.1) 2 (28.6)
 Cervical 49 (41.2) 44 (39.3) 5 (71.4)
Intraoperative procedures
 Gastric conduit 119 (100)
 Pyloric intervention (Botox) 8 (6.7) 8 (100) 0 (0)
Timing of upper gastrointestinal contrast study
 Median days from surgery (IQR) 3 (2–3) 3 (2–3) 3 (3–4)
Tumor details for patients with esophageal cancer (n = 117)
 Histological tumor type
  Adenocarcinoma 104 (88.9) 98 (89.1) 6 (85.7)
  Squamous cell carcinoma 11 (9.4) 10 (9.1) 1 (14.3)
  Neuroendocrine tumor 2 (1.7) 2 (1.8) 0 (0)
 Clinical tumor stage
  HGD 3 (2.6) 3 (2.7) 0 (0)
  I 8 (6.8) 8 (7.3) 0 (0)
  II 10 (8.6) 8 (7.3) 2 (28.6)
  III 76 (65.0) 72 (65.5) 4 (57.1)
  IVa 20 (17.1) 19 (17.3) 1 (14.3)
 Preoperative therapy
  Chemoradiotherapy 45 (38.5) 44 (40.0) 1 (14.3)
  Chemotherapy 40 (34.2) 36 (32.7) 4 (57.1)
  Surgery alone 32 (27.4) 30 (27.3) 2 (28.6)

*Reason for not completing the contrast study was aspiration in 5 patients and incorrect protocol in 2 patients