Skip to main content

Management of intra-thoracic anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stenting


Despite a significant decrease of surgery-related mortality and morbidity, anastomotic leakage still occurs in a significant number of patients after esophagectomy. The two main endoscopic treatments in case of anastomotic leakage are self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and the endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT). It is still under debate, if one method is superior to the other. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature to compare the effectiveness and the related morbidity of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of esophageal leakage. We systematically searched for studies comparing SEMS and EVT to treat anastomotic leak after esophageal surgery. Predefined endpoints including outcome, treatment success, endoscopy, treatment duration, re-operation rate, intensive care and hospitalization time, stricture rate, morbidity and mortality were assessed and included in the meta-analysis. Seven retrospective studies including 338 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Compared to stenting, EVT was significantly associated with higher healing (OR 2.47, 95% CI [1.30 to 4.73]), higher number of endoscopic changes (pooled median difference of 3.57 (95% CI [2.24 to 4.90]), shorter duration of treatment (pooled median difference − 11.57 days; 95% CI [− 17.45 to − 5.69]), and stricture rate (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.08 to 0.62]). Hospitalization and intensive care unit duration, in-hospital mortality rate, rate of major and treatment related complications, of surgical revisions and of esophago-tracheal fistula failed to show significant differences between the two groups. Our analysis indicates a high potential for EVT, but because of the retrospective design of the included studies with potential biases, these results must be interpreted with caution. More robust prospective randomized trials should further investigate the potential of the two procedures.

Peer Review reports


In the last decades, interdisciplinary treatment and improvement of surgical techniques led to a significant decrease of surgery-related mortality and morbidity after esophageal surgery [1,2,3,4,5]. However, although benchmarking studies showed that a leakage rate of 10–15% is realistic in centers with adequate volume, most studies report rates up to 30% with a high rate of fatal outcomes [6,7,8,9].

While cervical anastomotic leakages can usually be managed by wound drainage, intrathoracic and abdominal esophageal leakage requires an individual treatment strategy [9,10,11,12,13]. Undisputed is the need of a surgical revision in case of conduit necrosis [14,15,16], whereas for contained leakages nonsurgical, radiologic-interventional or endoscopic procedures are more commonly used [14, 16,17,18,19]. The two main endoscopic treatments of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy are the placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), which can still be denoted as the therapeutic gold standard in most parts of the world and, as a more recently introduced method, the endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT). At least in Germany, the latter has become the more preferred method since its introduction in 2008. The SEMS covers the leak until the defect has healed, with a closure rate of approximately 83% (range 50–100%). Concomitant percutaneous drainages are necessary to control pleural infection and sepsis [20, 21].

EVT is performed by endoscopical positioning of a polyurethane sponge into the esophagus or even into the leak itself. Continuous negative pressure (up to − 125 mmHg) is applied to the sponge through a nasogastric tube. The sponge is regularly changed every 72–96 h [22]. Continuous fluid suction is one of the main advantages of EVT compared to SEMS: it reduces the need for percutaneous or surgical drainage of fluid collections, and thus the complications related to these procedures [23]. In the literature, a closure rate ranging from 66 to 100% has been reported [24, 25]. Other endoscopic interventions, such as endoscopic suture techniques or clipping, have been described only in case series [26, 27].

The aim of this updated systematic review of the currently available literature and meta-analysis is to summarize the growing comparative data regarding the two most frequently used techniques for the treatment of intrathoracic or abdominal anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, SEMS and EVT, and to increase the existing evidence for these methods [28, 29].

Methods and data

Search strategy, data collection and data analysis were performed as reported in our previous meta-analysis [28] and are described below.

Inclusion criteria

We searched for prospective and retrospective studies comparing endoscopic stenting and EVT for the treatment of patients with anastomotic leakage after gastric or esophageal resection and intrathoracic/mediastinal esophago-enteric anastomosis.


The primary analyzed outcome was the rate of successful leak closure. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ICU and hospitalization time (in days), duration of endoscopic therapy (in days), and number of endoscopic treatments (stent and sponge changes), major and treatment related complications, re-operation rate, stricture and tracheobronchial fistula rate.

Search strategy

We performed a systematic review according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist [30], searching for published and unpublished trials without language restrictions using the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (central) and MEDLINE (1 January 2008 to 1 June 2022). Searches were carried out using medical subject headings and free-text words in combination with the search strategy for randomized controlled trials.

The proposed search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid interface) was: (1) EVT OR vacuum OR sponge. (2) stent OR SEMS. (3) #1 AND #2. The strategy was changed for other databases. In addition, we searched the reference lists of articles retrieved by the search and contacted experts in the field to obtain additional data. We also searched relevant journals and conference abstracts to address the issue of publication bias.

Data collection and analysis

The titles and abstracts of the manuscripts were independently assessed by two investigators (M.T. and P.S.). Studies that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The full texts of all possibly relevant articles were evaluated to determine eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third investigator (N.M.)

Independently, the following data were retrieved: authors, year of publication, country, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study methodology, number of treated patients in each group, age and sex of patients, underlying disease, type of resection and reconstruction, neoadjuvant therapy, intervention details, duration of endoscopic treatment, number of endoscopic sessions, risk of bias, and outcomes including endoscopy-related complications, closure rate, re-operation rate, overall hospitalization, and in-hospital mortality. We corresponded with study investigators for further data on methods and results, as required.

Study quality

Risk of bias was evaluated by the two investigators based on the ROBINS-I score, validating each grade of confounding, selection, classification of and deviation from intervention, missing data, outcome measurement, and selection of reported results [31].

Disagreements were objectively discussed by the two investigators until an agreement was reached.

Statistical analysis

The treatment effect was measured with odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables and median differences for continuous variables. The homogeneity of effect sizes among studies being pooled was assessed with the I2 statistic. A meta‐analysis was conducted regardless of the level of homogeneity. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel method under a random‐effects model. Pooled-effect measures were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Estimation of pooled medians was performed using the quantile estimation method [32], with the difference in medians calculated as the median of the EVT group minus the median of the SEMS group.

All statistical analyses were done with the statistical software package R [33] version 4.0.3, the R-packages metafor [34] version 2.4-0, and metamedian [35] version 0.1.5. Sensitivity analyses were planned on the basis of trial quality and the methods of the meta‐analysis, but because of the small number of studies available for meta‐analysis, this was not performed.


Description of studies

A total of 615 publications were found using the search strategy. After removing 27 duplicate records, we screened the titles and abstracts of 588 records and discarded 508 records, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. We obtained the full text of 80 articles for in‐depth review and excluded 73, leaving seven retrospective studies to be included in this review [36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The PRISMA flow diagram is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

The studies included 338 patients with esophageal leakage in the analysis (range 18–111). Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Patient characteristics

All studies compared EVT with endoscopic stenting; three studies also included surgical revision (Schniewind et al. [40] Eichelmann et al. [41] and El Sourani et al. [42]).

Five studies [36,37,38,39, 42] reported the primary outcome of healing rate after endoscopic therapy. By contacting Eichelmann et al. [41] we were also able to obtain the healing rate of their patient cohort. Healing rates from Schniewind et al. [40] were not available for analysis.

Reported secondary outcomes were mortality, ICU and hospitalization time, major and treatment related complications, re-operation rate, stricture rate, esophago-tracheal fistula rate and duration of endoscopic therapy and number of interventions.

Quality of included studies

We performed ROBINS-I scoring to evaluate the risk of bias in the included retrospective studies [31] (Table 2). The overall risk of bias of the retrospective studies was low to moderate in six studies, but one study showed a serious risk of bias, mainly due to missing data. Because of the small number of included studies, no testing for publication bias for the primary outcome was performed as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Table 2 ROBINS-I Scoring of the selected studies


Patient outcomes are summarized in Table 3. All studies reported results on the duration of hospitalization. The number of endoscopic interventions, treatment duration, successful closure, re-operation rate and in-hospital mortality were reported in six trials, each. Treatment related complications, was reported in five studies. Four studies presented data for major complications and intensive care unit (ICU) duration, three studies for post-therapeutic stricture. However, not all studies could always be included in respective meta-analyses due to different endpoints reported.

Table 3 Patient outcome

EVT was associated with a significantly higher rate of leak closure compared to stenting (OR 2.47, 95% CI [1.30 to 4.73]) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Closure rate

The number of endoscopic device changes was significantly more frequent in the EVT group than in the SEMS group, with an estimated pooled median difference of 3.57 (95% CI [2.24 to 4.90]) (Fig. 3A). The duration of treatment was generally shorter for patients treated by EVT, with the exception of two studies that showed a shorter, but not significant treatment time for the SEMS group. The estimated pooled median difference (− 11.57 days) was nevertheless statistically significant (95% CI [− 17.45 to − 5.69]) (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A Number of endoscopic stent/sponge changes, B endoscopic treatment duration, C duration of hospitalization, D duration of intensive care unit stay

The duration of overall hospitalization was non superior in one of the groups, with an estimated pooled median difference of 6 days (95% CI [− 1.68 to 13.69]) (Fig. 3C).

Data on the duration of ICU stay could be pooled in three studies, showing no significant differences between the two groups (estimated pooled median difference of − 0.5 days (95% CI [− 7.73 to 6.74]) Fig. 3D).

Treatment related and major complications failed to show significant differences (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.17 to 1.34]; and OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.17 to 1.40], respectively), even though both were fewer in EVT patients (Fig. 4A, B).

Fig. 4
figure 4

A Treatment related complications, B major complications, C esophago-tracheal fistula, D esophageal stenosis/stricture

Rate of esophago-tracheal fistula showed no significant differences (OR 0.76, 95% CI [0.12 to 4.68]) (Fig. 4C). Focusing on the stricture rate after healing, it proved to be statistically lower in the EVT group (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.08 to 0.62]) (Fig. 4D).

Overall surgical revision rate did not show a significant difference between the two groups (OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.12 to 1.60]). (Fig. 5A). In-hospital mortality failed to show a significantly lower outcome in the group of patients treated with EVT (OR 0.58, 95% CI [0.26 to 1.30]) (Fig. 5B).

Fig. 5
figure 5

A Re-operation, B in-hospital mortality

Treatment costs were reported only by one study [41]. None of the studies reported data on long-term survival, time to resumption of oral intake or quality of life.


Treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophageal resections remains controversial. A rising number of studies have recently compared the two most frequent techniques, SEMS placement and EVT, but prospective, or even randomized studies are still lacking. In our systematic literature search, we identified seven retrospective comparative studies with a total of 338 patients (range 18–111, median 44 patients) that met our inclusion criteria [36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Compared to earlier published meta-analyses comparing SEMS and EVT, we included two additional studies in the present analysis from 2021 [28, 29, 41,42,43].

According to the recent meta-analyses, the addition of the two recent studies underlined the significantly better healing rate of EVT compared to placement of SEMS. This primary treatment goal is mainly considered as resolution of leakage-related symptoms and endoscopic or radiologic controls showing closure. Nevertheless, the absence of a clear definition was one of the main problems leading to limited comparability in our analysis.

Despite the finding that most of the studies reported less treatment related complications in the EVT group, the meta-analysis failed to show a significant difference. Moreover, we were able to analyze two complications in detail, the feared esophago-tracheal fistula and the esophageal stenosis after healing of the leakage.

It is hypothesized that the SEMS through erosion or smoldering inflammation and EVT through the negative pressure may provoke a higher esophago-tracheal or -bronchial fistula rate, but our analysis of three studies did not show a significant difference of this feared and often fatal complication [36, 44].

The additional study allowed us to perform a meta-analysis of the stricture rate. This remains one of the factors influencing the most the quality of life of patients after the healing of an anastomotic leakage and showed to be higher in the SEMS group.

Treatment duration was significantly shorter with EVT than with SEMS. However, the result of a shortened healing duration must be evaluated critically, since patients being treated with EVT undergo sponge changes every 3–5 days until healing is reported, whereas stents usually remain in place for 4–6 weeks. Consequently, the exact time of leak closure is unprecise in these cases. Corroborating this hypothesis, ICU and hospitalization time showed no significant differences between the two groups.

This bias may well be reversed by monitoring indirect signs of leakage closure, such as the resolution of the symptoms, the start of oral intake or the absence of further therapeutic interventions. Unfortunately, none of the studies presented these data.

In accordance with our previous findings [28], EVT needed a higher number of endoscopic interventions for changing of the sponge. This allows for better monitoring of local inflammation, endoscopic lavage and debridement, reduction of pleural inflammation and possibly, leakage-associated mortality, on the one hand. On the other hand, this generates more periprocedural stress, and recurrent sedation may also result in complications [45]. In this regard, recent studies suggest the use of a naso-mediastinal drainage system to drain the mediastinal abscess similarly to EVT, eventually reducing the number of endoscopic interventions necessary to change the sponge [46]. Comparative studies with other methods are though still missing.

Another main confounding factor is the heterogeneity of the included patients: in fact, intrinsic characteristics of the leakage, such as the circumferential extent, necessarily affect the outcome. Between the included studies, only Berlth et al. and El Sourani et al. classified the patients based on the leakage grade [36, 42].

Moreover, the SEMS procedure is standardized and reproducible, whereas EVT has many variables which may present differences between institutions: (1) extent of negative pressure, (2) extra- or intraluminal placement of the sponge, (3) time interval between sponge changes, (4) size of the sponge and material.

Specifically, in the included studies, Schniewind et al. used a negative pressure of 70–80 mmHg, with varying intervals between sponge changes [40]. The other studies all reported the same negative pressure of 125 mmHg, and the time between the interventions ranged between 3 and 7 days [36,37,38,39, 41]. The goal should be an intracavitary, extra-luminal placement of the polyurethan foam. If the leakage size is too small, either an endoscopic widening of the hole is possible to examine and clean the abscess and to place the sponge inside or alternatively, an intraluminal placement of the sponge is possible [47]. With this, the abscess cavity can be drained, but in our opinion, the cleaning and granulation inducing effect of the EVT is significantly reduced. Aiming to tailor the optimal therapy for each situation, new methods and materials were recently added as a helpful alternative to the classical polyurethan foam, for example other, softer sponge materials (‘white sponge’) or the open pore film drainage. The latter is a great improvement that allows the treatment of smaller leakages and both can be left in situ for longer intervals, due to its limited ingrowth into the granulation tissue [48,49,50]. Another benefit of the open pore film drainage is the easier handling during the endoscopic placement process and also the removal. Further innovations are made, such as the recently described hybrid SEMS with vacuum therapy or the introduction of more cost-conscious self-made constructions [50, 51]. In our clinical experience, EVT can be applied both in small and large leakages, even with large abscesses and pleural empyema with good results.

In contrast to the recently published meta-analyses, the mortality rate failed to show a significant difference. It must be highlighted, that the recent study of El Sourani and colleagues showed in contrast to the other four included studies an extra-ordinary high rate of reoperations and concomitant mortality, that was described as not related to the leakage or therapy and happened after the endoscopic closure of the leakage [42]. This might highlight the fact, that an early treatment of the anastomotic leakage does not relevantly elevate the mortality rate per se and the majority or mortal complication is based on other concomitant morbidities [52]. However, it would be of special interest, if the leakage related re-operation rate is influenced by the technique of endoscopic therapy and moreover, if the EVT might reduce the rate of surgical thoracic re-interventions, but none of the studies further specified on this.

Importantly, quality of life during the therapy is an aspect that needs paying attention to. The necessity of a permanent nasogastric tube during the whole duration of the EVT is rather discomforting for the patients. In recent case series, Giraldo-Grueso et al. suggested a pharyngostomy as a novel access for EVT. This approach avoids the necessity of the nasogastric tube, allowing for safe transition to outpatient management and reaching results comparable to those of classic EVT. However, data from just six patients were analyzed, so that future studies are needed to confirm the findings [53]. Another technique, that our group is recently working on, is the access to the esophageal leakage via drainage-channels, that can be used for flexible fistuloscopy and percutaneous sponge placement and was recently published for duodenal and rectal leakages [54, 55].

With its increasing usage and already mentioned developments regarding the material and (patient and therapists) comfort, the indications for the method are expanded. Several groups have investigated a potential benefit of EVT placement as a leakage prophylaxis, not only in case of high-risk anastomoses but as a general approach [56, 57]. Moreover, in a recent case series from Loske and colleagues, a double-lumen drain with open-pore film was used with negative pressure to protect the anastomosis from postoperative reflux and allowed an enteral (jejunal) nutrition after esophageal resection, resulting in no anastomotic leakages in all the treated patients [58].

Another significant feature of the two methods is the socio-economic aspect: owing to the higher number of endoscopies performed for EVT and a different cost reimbursement, the deficit of this treatment modality is twice as high as that of SEMS treatment in the German DRG system [59]. Of the analyzed studies, only one other (Eichelmann and colleagues) investigated this aspect. The authors reported, in line with Berlth’s results, higher costs for EVT than for SEMS, with a delta increase of 37%. Nevertheless, they pointed out that the main costs result from the ICU stay, whereas the costs for the two different interventions were comparable, suggesting that the reduction of the length of the ICU stay should be the main aim to reduce overall costs in case of anastomotic leak [41]. However, based on the current available studies, EVT does not show a relevant reduction of the intensive care treatment time, since the two recent studies did not observe a reduction of the ICU stay, contrary to the studies of Schniewind and Berlth which reported shorter ICU stays for EVT patients [36, 40,41,42].

Because of the risk of bias in the included primary studies, the results of our analysis must be interpreted cautiously. First of all, since all the included studies are retrospective, no blinding of outcome assessment could be performed. Moreover, the lack of information in some of the studies made the risk of bias difficult to assess. Also, since the studies compare medical products, possible commercial interests have to be taken into consideration. Addressing these fundamental aspects, our group recently started a prospective randomized pilot study (RCT), together with the University of Cologne, the ESOLEAK-Trial [60]. We are aware that the data of our meta-analysis indicate a pretty clear picture and one might argue, that a randomized trial is not necessary and moreover, ethical questioning. SEMS is still and undoubted the gold standard in the majority of esophageal cancer centers worldwide. In our point of view, the superiority of the EVT can yet not be proven on a high-level evidence basis due to the aforementioned points, and we will not be able to make a final judgement about the two techniques without a prospective and controlled analysis. With this study, we hope to give a clearer and less biased picture of the efficacy, morbidity and costs of the two therapies and if it indicates a superiority of the EVT, the technique will be further spread in the surgical community.

In conclusion, our meta-analysis confirms that EVT shows a significantly higher success rate and faster healing of esophageal leaks without an elevated treatment related complication rate, but fails to show a clear superiority regarding in-hospital mortality and hospitalization compared to SEMS. Nevertheless, because of the limitations of the analyzed studies, a clear recommendation cannot be made. High quality register studies or even better randomized controlled trials with standardized treatment and outcome parameters are needed to further evaluate these two treatment options.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.


  1. Barbour AP, Cormack OMM, Baker PJ, Hirst J, Krause L, Brosda S, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life following esophagectomy: a nonrandomized comparison of thoracoscopically assisted and open surgery. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1158–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg RV. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(1):1–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Low DE. Evolution in surgical management of esophageal cancer. Dig Dis. 2013;31(1):21–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(2):152–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Messager M, Pasquer A, Duhamel A, Caranhac G, Piessen G, Mariette C, et al. Laparoscopic gastric mobilization reduces postoperative mortality after esophageal cancer surgery: a French nationwide study. Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):817–22 (discussion 22-).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling G, et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):291–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A, Mabrut JY, Bail JP, Carrere N, et al. The impact of severe anastomotic leak on long-term survival and cancer recurrence after surgical resection for esophageal malignancy. Ann Surg. 2015;262(6):972–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, Karpeh M, et al. The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(1):42–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Whooley BP, Law S, Alexandrou A, Murthy SC, Wong J. Critical appraisal of the significance of intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for cancer. Am J Surg. 2001;181(3):198–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Biere SS, Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg. 2011;28(1):29–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crestanello JA, Deschamps C, Cassivi SD, Nichols FC, Allen MS, Schleck C, et al. Selective management of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(2):254–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gooszen JAH, Goense L, Gisbertz SS, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(5):552–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffin SM, Lamb PJ, Dresner SM, Richardson DL, Hayes N. Diagnosis and management of a mediastinal leak following radical oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2001;88(10):1346–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Low DE. Diagnosis and management of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(8):1319–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Palmes D, Bruwer M, Bader FG, Betzler M, Becker H, Bruch HP, et al. Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396(6):857–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Turkyilmaz A, Eroglu A, Aydin Y, Tekinbas C, MuharremErol M, Karaoglanoglu N. The management of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. Dis Esophagus. 2009;22(2):119–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grimminger PP, Goense L, Gockel I, Bergeat D, Bertheuil N, Chandramohan SM, et al. Diagnosis, assessment, and management of surgical complications following esophagectomy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1434(1):254–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin LW, Hofstetter W, Swisher SG, Roth JA. Management of intrathoracic leaks following esophagectomy. Adv Surg. 2006;40:173–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Messager M, Warlaumont M, Renaud F, Marin H, Branche J, Piessen G, et al. Recent improvements in the management of esophageal anastomotic leak after surgery for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(2):258–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dasari BV, Neely D, Kennedy A, Spence G, Rice P, Mackle E, et al. The role of esophageal stents in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and benign esophageal perforations. Ann Surg. 2014;259(5):852–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Persson S, Rouvelas I, Irino T, Lundell L. Outcomes following the main treatment options in patients with a leaking esophagus: a systematic literature review. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(12):1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pournaras DJ, Hardwick RH, Safranek PM, Sujendran V, Bennett J, Macaulay GD, et al. Endoluminal vacuum therapy (E-Vac): a treatment option in oesophagogastric surgery. World J Surg. 2018;42(8):2507–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dent B, Griffin SM, Jones R, Wahed S, Immanuel A, Hayes N. Management and outcomes of anastomotic leaks after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2016;103(8):1033–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuehn F, Loske G, Schiffmann L, Gock M, Klar E. Endoscopic vacuum therapy for various defects of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(9):3449–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Virgilio E, Ceci D, Cavallini M. Surgical endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure therapy (EVAC) in treating anastomotic leakages after major resective surgery of esophageal and gastric cancer. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(10):5581–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomez-Esquivel R, Raju GS. Endoscopic closure of acute esophageal perforations. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2013;15(5):321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mennigen R, Colombo-Benkmann M, Senninger N, Laukoetter M. Endoscopic closure of postoperative gastrointestinal leakages and fistulas with the Over-the-Scope Clip (OTSC). J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(6):1058–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scognamiglio P, Reeh M, Karstens K, Bellon E, Kantowski M, Schon G, et al. Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stenting for postoperative esophago-enteric anastomotic leakage: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;52(8):632–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rausa E, Asti E, Aiolfi A, Bianco F, Bonitta G, Bonavina L. Comparison of endoscopic vacuum therapy versus endoscopic stenting for esophageal leaks: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. McGrath S, Sohn H, Steele R, Benedetti A. Two-sample aggregate data metaanalysis of medians. 2018. ArXiv e-prints

  33. RC T. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2019.

  34. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2019;36:1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McGrath S, Zhao X, Steele R, Benedetti A. Metamedian: meta-analysis of medians. R package version 0.1.4. 2019.

  36. Berlth F, Bludau M, Plum PS, Herbold T, Christ H, Alakus H, et al. Self-expanding metal stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in anastomotic leak treatment after oncologic gastroesophageal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(1):67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brangewitz M, Voigtlander T, Helfritz FA, Lankisch TO, Winkler M, Klempnauer J, et al. Endoscopic closure of esophageal intrathoracic leaks: stent versus endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, a retrospective analysis. Endoscopy. 2013;45(6):433–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hwang JJ, Jeong YS, Park YS, Yoon H, Shin CM, Kim N, et al. Comparison of endoscopic vacuum therapy and endoscopic stent implantation with self-expandable metal stent in treating postsurgical gastroesophageal leakage. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(16):e3416.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mennigen R, Harting C, Lindner K, Vowinkel T, Rijcken E, Palmes D, et al. Comparison of endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stent for anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(7):1229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schniewind B, Schafmayer C, Voehrs G, Egberts J, von Schoenfels W, Rose T, et al. Endoscopic endoluminal vacuum therapy is superior to other regimens in managing anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a comparative retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(10):3883–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Eichelmann AK, Ismail S, Merten J, Slepecka P, Palmes D, Laukotter MG, et al. Economic burden of endoscopic vacuum therapy compared to alternative therapy methods in patients with anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(10):2447–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. El-Sourani N, Miftode S, Bockhorn M, Arlt A, Meinhardt C. Endoscopic management of anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery: ten year analysis in a Tertiary University Center. Clin Endosc. 2022;55(1):58–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. do Monte Junior ES, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB, Hathorn KE, Farias GFA, Turiani CV, et al. Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus endoscopic stenting for upper gastrointestinal transmural defects: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2021;33(6):892–902.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lambertz R, Holscher AH, Bludau M, Leers JM, Gutschow C, Schroder W. Management of tracheo- or bronchoesophageal fistula after ivor-lewis esophagectomy. World J Surg. 2016;40(7):1680–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Weidenhagen R, Hartl WH, Gruetzner KU, Eichhorn ME, Spelsberg F, Jauch KW. Anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection: new treatment options by endoluminal vacuum therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(5):1674–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yin Q, Zhou S, Song Y, Xun X, Liu N, Liu L. Treatment of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy with the sump drainage tube. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;16(1):46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Loske G, Schorsch T, Muller C. Intraluminal and intracavitary vacuum therapy for esophageal leakage: a new endoscopic minimally invasive approach. Endoscopy. 2011;43(6):540–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Loske G, Muller CT. Tips and tricks for endoscopic negative pressure therapy. Chirurg. 2019;90(Suppl 1):7–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Loske G, Schorsch T, Rucktaeschel F, Schulze W, Riefel B, van Ackeren V, et al. Open-pore film drainage (OFD): a new multipurpose tool for endoscopic negative pressure therapy (ENPT). Endosc Int Open. 2018;6(7):E865–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. de Moura DTH, Hirsch BS, Do Monte Junior ES, McCarty TR, de Medeiros FS, Thompson CC, et al. Cost-effective modified endoscopic vacuum therapy for the treatment of gastrointestinal transmural defects: step-by-step process of manufacturing and its advantages. VideoGIE. 2021;6(12):523–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Chon SH, Tox U, Lorenz F, Rieck I, Wagner BJ, Kleinert R, et al. A novel hybrid stent with endoscopic vacuum therapy for treating leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Visc Med. 2021;37(5):403–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kamarajah SK, Lin A, Tharmaraja T, Bharwada Y, Bundred JR, Nepogodiev D, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33(3):doz089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Giraldo-Grueso M, Bolton N, Brown R. Endoscopic vacuum therapy via pharyngostomy: novel access for management of upper gastrointestinal defects. Am Surg. 2021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Loske G, Liedke M, Schloricke E, Herrmann T, Rucktaeschel F. Endoscopic negative-pressure therapy for duodenal leakage using new open-pore film and polyurethane foam drains with the pull-through technique. Endoscopy. 2017;49(12):E300–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Muller J, Goerdt AM, Muller CT, Loske G. Endoscopic negative pressure therapy for a broad rectal fistula using pull-through open-pore film and polyurethane foam drains. Endoscopy. 2021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gubler C, Vetter D, Schmidt HM, Muller PC, Morell B, Raptis D, et al. Preemptive endoluminal vacuum therapy to reduce anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a game-changing approach? Dis Esophagus. 2019;32(7):doy126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Neumann PA, Mennigen R, Palmes D, Senninger N, Vowinkel T, Laukoetter MG. Pre-emptive endoscopic vacuum therapy for treatment of anastomotic ischemia after esophageal resections. Endoscopy. 2017;49(5):498–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Loske G, Muller J, Schulze W, Riefel B, Muller CT. Pre-emptive active drainage of reflux (PARD) in Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy with negative pressure and simultaneous enteral nutrition using a double-lumen open-pore film drain (dOFD). Surg Endosc. 2022;36(3):2208–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Baltin C, Kron F, Urbanski A, Zander T, Kron A, Berlth F, et al. The economic burden of endoscopic treatment for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Tachezy M, Chon SH, Rieck I, Kantowski M, Christ H, Karstens K, et al. Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stent treatment of esophageal anastomotic leaks (ESOLEAK): study protocol for a prospective randomized phase 2 trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):377.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



PS collected the data, designed the study, prepared Fig. 1 and all the tables and wrote the main manuscript text. MR, NM, SHC and JRI contributed to the interpretation of the data and reviewed the manuscript. MK designed the study and reviewed the manuscript. AKE collected the data and reviewed the manuscript. GS, AH performed the statistical analysis, prepared Figs. 2, 3 and 4 and reviewed the manuscript. MT designed the study and wrote the main manuscript text. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pasquale Scognamiglio.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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 22, 309 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: