Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28(01): 55-60
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_262_17
Gastrointestinal Radiology and Hepatology

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy of post-esophagectomy water-soluble computed tomography and fluoroscopic swallow studies: A meta-analysis

Timothy E Murray
Department of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
,
Martina Morrin
Department of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
› Author Affiliations
Subject Editor: Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aims: Both fluoroscopic water-soluble contrast swallow (FWSCS) and CT water-soluble contrast swallow (CTWSCS) are widely performed as a routine in the post-esophagectomy patient to assess for anastomotic leak. Several prospective studies have compared FWSCS and CTWSCS; however, no synthesis of the data exists. Materials and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies comparing FWSCS and CTWSCS in the adult patient following esophagectomy for malignancy was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Three diagnostic test accuracy studies met the inclusion criteria, directly comparing FWSCS and CTWSCS in 185 patients. FWSCS demonstrated high specificity (98%), but low sensitivity (64%). CTWSCS can be categorized as normal, mediastinal gas without contrast leak, or leakage of oral contrast. Visible leakage of oral contrast demonstrated high specificity (98%) but low sensitivity (56%). The presence of mediastinal gas increased sensitivity (84%), but reduced specificity (85%). The higher sensitivity of CTWSCS over FWSCS failed to reach significance (P = 0.125). Conclusion: CTWSCS shares the high specificity of FWSCS. Its higher sensitivity increases its utility as a rule-out test in the postoperative period. Additional factors that may influence decision-making are described.

Keywords

Anastomotic leakage - computed tomography - esophagectomy - fluoroscopy


Publication History

Article published online:
26 July 2021

© 2018. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 5598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Howick JCI, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I. OCEBM Table of Evidence Working Group. et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evi-dence (Introductory Document, Background Document, Table). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Hogan BA, Winter DC, Broe D, Broe P, Lee MJ. Prospective trial comparing contrast swallow, computed tomography and endoscopy to identify anastomotic leak following oe-sophagogastric surgery. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 767-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Upponi S, Ganeshan A, D’Costa H, Betts M, Maynard N, Bungay H. et al. Radiologi-cal detection of post-oesophagectomy anastomotic leak—a comparison between multidetec-tor CT and fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 545-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Strauss C, Mal F, Perniceni T, Bouzar N, Lenoir S, Gayet B. et al. Computed tomog-raphy versus water-soluble contrast swallow in the detection of intrathoracic anastomotic leak complicating esophagogastrectomy (Ivor Lewis): A prospective study in 97 patients. Ann Surg 2010; 251: 647-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB. et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Internal Med 2011; 155: 529-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross Jr. P, Koppes KE, Donahue JM, Daniel VC. Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: An analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thorac Surg 96: 1919-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tirnaksiz MB, Deschamps C, Allen MS, Johnson DC, Pairolero PC. Effectiveness of screening aqueous contrast swallow in detecting clinically significant anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Eur Surg Res 2005; 37: 123-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cools-Lartigue J, Andalib A, Abo-Alsaud A, Gowing S, Nguyen M, Mulder D. et al. Routine contrast esophagram has minimal impact on the postoperative management of pa-tients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 2573-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lungren MP, Yoshizumi TT, Brady SM, Toncheva G, Anderson-Evans C, Lowry C. et al. Radiation dose estimations to the thorax using organ-based dose modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: W65-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wambani JS, Korir GK, Tries MA, Korir IK, Sakwa JM. Patient radiation exposure during general fluoroscopy examinations. Med Imaging 2014; 15: 4555
    Google Scholar
  • 13 MDSave.com. [website] MDSave Incorporated. Brentwood; Tennessee: Updated 30/11/16. [Last accessed on 2016 Nov 30]
    Google Scholar