Management of post-esophagectomy functional disorders: a clinical practice review

Introduction

Background

The landscape of esophageal cancer management has transformed considerably over the recent decades. Improvements in multimodal therapy, surgical technique, and perioperative care have enhanced survival rates, creating an expanding cohort of long-term esophagectomy survivors. These patients face unique challenges stemming from the profound anatomical and physiological alterations that occur with replacing the resected esophagus. Post-esophagectomy functional disorders encompass a spectrum of complications arising from the loss of esophageal function, disruption of vagal innervation, and the limitations of conduit physiology.

Rationale and knowledge gap

The incidence of these conditions varies widely in the published literature, reflecting differences in surgical technique, follow-up protocols, and diagnostic criteria (1-3). What remains consistent is their substantial impact on quality of life (1-4). Patients frequently report that managing these functional complications proves more challenging than their cancer treatment itself. This paradox underscores the importance of a comprehensive understanding and proactive management of post-esophagectomy functional disorders. While previous review papers provide an overview of many common functional complications that arise after an esophagectomy, specific issues such as nutritional consequences, conduit problems and long-term complications are not readily addressed (1-3).

Objective

This review provides a structured approach to a broad range of these complications, not only based on their symptomatology but also describing the pathophysiologic basis for many of these symptoms. It also aims to provide an overview of the technical challenges and anatomic problems related to the procedure that contribute to these disorders. We examine current evidence for prevention and both short- and long-term management while highlighting areas requiring further investigations. This paper, therefore, provides one of the most comprehensive reviews on this topic of post-esophagectomy functional disorders.

As survival continues to improve after esophagectomies, optimizing functional outcomes becomes increasingly paramount in delivering comprehensive care to esophagectomy patients.

Pathophysiological basis

The fundamental challenge in esophageal reconstruction lies in replacing a complex neuromuscular organ with a passive conduit. The native esophagus coordinates precisely timed peristaltic waves, maintains resting tone through the upper and lower esophageal sphincters, and clears refluxate through secondary peristalsis. This functioning depends on the intricate neural control involving both intrinsic and extrinsic innervation. However, esophagectomy disrupts these mechanisms, leading to absent or weakened contractile movements and uncoordinated efforts (1,5,6).

Gastric conduit construction, the most common reconstruction method, introduces additional physiologic disruptions. Vagotomy is often unavoidable during mobilization, eliminating coordinated gastric motility and secretory control (1,7). Lymphadenectomy, an essential part of the operation, disrupts the inhibitory sympathetic stimuli from the celiac and mesenteric axis, further disturbing the complex neural regulatory system. The gastric fundus that normally functions as a compliant reservoir is removed during tube formation. The remaining gastric body and antrum, now positioned vertically in the chest, must function against gravity without the benefit of normal pressure gradients. Negative intrathoracic pressure, which normally aids esophageal clearance, instead promotes reflux into the intrathoracic stomach (1,5-7).

The pylorus presents additional challenges. Some surgeons perform routine pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy to prevent delayed gastric emptying from vagal denervation. However, this may exacerbate duodenogastric reflux, creating a different set of problems. Centers avoiding pyloric drainage report variable rates of outlet obstruction requiring intervention (8-12). On the other hand, a recent randomized controlled trial by Luketich et al. that compared 90 patients who underwent pyloroplasty at the time of esophagectomy to 40 patients who had no pyloroplasty found that early postoperative outcomes were improved for the pyloroplasty group with lower risk of pneumonia or anastomotic leak. However, its effects on longer term outcomes are yet to be elicited (13). This exemplifies the “no perfect solution” reality of post-esophagectomy physiology.

The decision to use alternative conduits such as a colonic or jejunal interposition graft is typically dependent on the availability of the stomach for conduit creation and technical factors. Colonic and jejunal conduits have been associated with lower reflux, regurgitation, and dysphagia. This is in part due to the absence of acid-producing mucosa of the stomach and the normal peristaltic activity of the small and large intestines. But the relatively short mesentery of the jejunum and the size mismatch of the colon to the esophagus lead to other technical issues, increasing the chance of mechanistic problems such as redundancy and kinking and conduit ischemia which can lead to additional post-esophagectomy complications (14-16).

Beyond mechanical considerations, neural and hormonal disruptions contribute significantly to development of these functional disorders. Vagal afferents normally signal satiety, coordinate digestive responses, and modulate inflammatory pathways. Their loss contributes to early satiety, dumping syndrome, and potentially to the systemic inflammatory response observed in some patients. Disruption of the migrating motor complex eliminates the normal functioning of the upper gastrointestinal tract which is regulated by both extrinsic and intrinsic innervation. Therefore, without the extrinsic vagal stimulation, the fundus does not completely relax at mealtimes, and the antral contractility is weakened. This incomplete gastric emptying can then contribute to bacterial overgrowth and bezoar formation (6,7,17).

Classification and symptomatology

Post-esophagectomy functional disorders are characterized by distinct symptom clusters, resulting from different anatomic and physiologic changes that occur after an esophagectomy (Figures 1,2).

Figure 1 Differential diagnoses of common symptoms of post-esophagectomy functional disorders. CT, computed tomography; G-POEM, gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

Figure 2 Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for post-esophagectomy functional disorders. CT, computed tomography; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

Dysphagia

Even after the mechanical obstruction from the tumor is relieved after an esophagectomy, some patients may experience functional dysphagia. This primarily results from the disruption in oropharyngeal swallowing mechanics and altered sensory function. In some cases, these changes are seen even without any associated vagal nerve injuries (18-20). Particularly common in the early postoperative phase, dysphagia has been reported in approximately 50% of post-esophagectomy patients although its prevalence seems to decrease over time. Dysphagia may occur exclusively to solids or liquids or both (4,20).

Clinical assessment and monitoring with validated tools such as the Cleveland Clinic Esophageal Questionnaire (CEQ) and Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) allow for a more accurate and quantitative measure of a patient’s symptoms (21,22). Although post-esophagectomy dysphagia may be functional as described above, other causes should be considered such as anastomotic strictures or due to food impaction or conduit obstruction.

Diagnostic work-up includes a contrasted swallow study and endoscopy. For strictures, acid suppression with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) should be started. If stenoses or strictures are found, endoscopic dilation may be needed. Anastomotic stricture formation affects 10–40% of patients, with rates varying by technique and definition. Multiple factors have been cited to cause strictures. Procedural factors have been implicated such as conduit ischemia due to devascularization during esophagectomy and increased conduit tension, anastomotic leak causing inflammation, and mucosal degeneration (23-26).

Presentation typically occurs 2–6 months postoperatively as scar tissue matures with progressive dysphagia to solids (1,23). Unlike malignant strictures, benign anastomotic strictures rarely cause complete obstruction or significant weight loss initially. Contrasted swallow study demonstrates smooth, concentric narrowing at the anastomosis. Endoscopic evaluation according to expert recommendations is primarily symptom-driven and can confirm the benign appearance. A biopsy can exclude cancer recurrence (27,28).

Endoscopic dilation provides effective first-line treatment. Bougie dilators offer controlled radial force, while balloon dilators provide direct visualization. The “rule of three”—limiting dilation to no more than 3 Bougie dilators or 3 mm increments per session—has traditionally been taught to reduce perforation risk (29). Most strictures require serial dilations (median 2–9 per patients) before achieving durable patency, although no guideline exists on the definitive number of sessions needed but rather should be symptom driven. Intralesional steroid injection may reduce recurrences in refractory cases. Temporary stenting is reserved for strictures failing repeated dilation, though stent migration and tissue ingrowth limit effectiveness. However, the expert recommendations on the use of these endoscopic interventions are largely based on reports from single-institution experiences and may not be entirely generalizable (28,30). Therefore, treatment plans should be individualized and take into consideration patient-reported symptoms and their specific pathology.

Dumping syndrome

Dumping syndrome represents a constellation of gastrointestinal and vasomotor symptoms that involves rapid delivery of hyperosmolar contents from the reconstructed conduit into the small bowel, triggering uncontrolled fluid shifts and hormonal responses. It affects 40–60% of esophagectomy patients, though severity varies considerably (31). The pathophysiology involves rapid delivery of hyperosmolar contents into the small bowel, triggering fluid shifts and hormonal responses. These physiologic changes result from a combination of anatomic and physiologic alterations that occur after an esophagectomy. Functional consequences such as loss of normal peristaltic activity and vagal denervation disrupt the normal neural and endocrine feedback mechanism that coordinate gastric emptying. Technical factors such as gastric resection lead to a loss of gastric reservoir and the pyloric drainage procedures eliminate the sphincter’s normal regulatory function (1,32).

Dumping syndrome is distinguished into two phases: early and late. Early dumping, occurring within 30 minutes of eating, manifests with vasomotor symptoms including diaphoresis, palpitations, and lightheadedness. Gastrointestinal symptoms include cramping, urgency, and diarrhea. Late dumping, occurring 1–3 hours postprandially, results from reactive hypoglycemia following excessive insulin release (31,33).

Clinical diagnosis relies primarily on symptom recognition, though provocative testing with a modified oral glucose tolerance test can confirm equivocal cases. In this test, early dumping is characterized by an increase in hematocrit >3% or pulse >10 bpm within 30 minutes of glucose ingestion, while late dumping by blood glucose drop <5 mg/dL (2.8 mmol/L) 1–3 hours after glucose load. The Sigstad scoring system provides objective criteria based on a constellation of symptoms but is rarely necessary in typical presentations and is less reliable for detecting late dumping syndrome (34). Management begins with dietary modification—small, frequent meals (5 small meals/day) and avoiding simple sugars and liquids with solids. Complex carbohydrates, protein and fiber should be emphasized while limiting hyperosmolar foods. Most patients achieve adequate symptom control through dietary measures alone.

Pharmacologic interventions target different pathophysiologic mechanisms, although the evidence on their use for dumping syndrome in post-esophagectomy patients remains limited. First-line management is dietary modification with pharmacologic agents recommended for refractory or late cases based on a Delphi consensus process from a group of international multidisciplinary experts (32). Acarbose, an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, delays carbohydrate absorption and reduces postprandial glucose excursions. Octreotide, a somatostatin analog, inhibits insulin release and slows intestinal transit but is reserved for severe cases given its side effects and cost. Newer agents including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show promise but require further study in this population (32,35).

Delayed gastric emptying/gastroparesis

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) or gastroparesis presents a paradoxical challenge—while dumping syndrome results from rapid emptying, up to 39% of patients experience problematic stasis (36). Both functional consequences and technical factors during esophagectomy play a role. Vagal denervation eliminates coordinated antral contractions and may cause pylorospasm and dysfunctional peristalsis. Acute angulation at the hiatus or technical factors like conduit redundancy exacerbate the problem. Patients report early satiety, nausea, vomiting, bloating, and postprandial fullness. Severe cases develop bezoar formation or functional obstruction requiring intervention.

Diagnosis requires correlation of symptoms with objective findings. Contrast studies demonstrate delayed emptying; however, the most recent expert consensus recommends its use for diagnosing late rather than early DGCE (37). Nuclear scintigraphy provides quantitative assessment of gastrointestinal motility disorders but lacks standardized criteria for gastric conduits and currently is not included in the diagnostic criteria for DGCE (6,37,38). Endoscopy excludes mechanical obstruction and assesses mucosal health.

Management follows a stepwise approach. Dietary modification—small portions (5 small meals/day), liquid diet, avoiding high fat or fibrous foods—provides first-line therapy. Medications such as opiates and anticholinergics and medical conditions such as poorly controlled diabetes that can exacerbate symptoms should be carefully reviewed. Prokinetic agents including metoclopramide or domperidone may help, though efficacy in denervated conduits is limited. Erythromycin, acting as a motilin agonist, provides short-term benefit, but tachyphylaxis develops quickly, and QT prolongation may occur. Serotonin type 4 (5-HT₄) receptor agonist such as prucalopride is a potential alternative medical therapy for refractory gastroparesis, although its evidence in DGCE again remains limited. It is also a prokinetic agent that works by stimulating the myenteric plexus and promoting peristalsis through the release of acetylcholine (39). Botulinum toxin injection into the pylorus offers temporary relief and may predict response to more definitive intervention. Typical endoscopic administration is performed using Botulinum toxin dose of 100 units reconstituted in 4 mL normal saline injected into each of the four quadrants of the pylorus using a standard 25-Gauge endoscopic needle (40,41). Endoscopic pyloric dilation is useful if there is evidence of stricture or stenosis contributing to DGCE. Surgical or endoscopic pyloroplasty, such as gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM), is reserved for refractory cases with demonstrated pyloric dysfunction (42).

Acid reflux

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), regurgitation, and aspiration represent a spectrum of related complications affecting most esophagectomy patients. Acid reflux results from the loss of the lower esophageal sphincter and negative intrathoracic pressure. Low intrathoracic anastomosis can increase this risk and should generally be avoided. Patients report classic heartburn and sour taste, though atypical presentations including chronic cough, hoarseness, and dental erosions are common. Nocturnal regurgitation risks aspiration, particularly dangerous in this population with limited pulmonary reserve.

Objective documentation helps guide therapy intensity. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring quantifies acid exposure, though probe placement in a reconstructed anatomy requires expertise. Management requires multimodal approach. Lifestyle modifications are needed for most patients to help adjust to their new “normal” life after surgery. Elevating the head of bed, maintaining upright position for a few hours after meals, and avoiding late meals or snacks are frequently described changes (43). Additional management include proton pump inhibitors which provide first-line pharmacologic therapy and remains effective in this patient population (44,45). Societal recommendations on the use of other pharmacologic agents for GERD are not specific to post-esophagectomy patients. Histamine receptor antagonists offer supplementary nocturnal control. Alginate preparations provide symptomatic relief by creating a physical barrier (43,44,46). Lifestyle modifications—elevation of the head of bed, avoiding late meals, remaining upright postprandially—are essential.

Bile reflux

Bile reflux deserves special consideration because it can cause debilitating problems for esophagectomy survivors. Its prevalence ranges from 44% up to 80% as reported in some studies (47-49). Factors related to the surgical technique used such as pyloroplasty leads to loss of pyloric function, contributing to reflux of biliopancreatic secretions into the gastric conduit and remnant esophagus, which causes alkaline injury. Clinical presentation varies from asymptomatic endoscopic findings to severe symptoms including bilious vomiting, chest pain, burning, and food intolerance. The temporal pattern often differs from acid reflux, with symptoms worse in fasting states when duodenogastric reflux predominates. In addition, bile reflux is a significant risk factor of recurrent aspirations which can lead to pulmonary inflammation and infection (49,50). These chronic aspiration events can, therefore, pose significant short- and long-term respiratory problems for these patients, including recurrent aspiration pneumonia, bronchiectasis, and declining pulmonary function.

Unlike acid reflux, which can be effectively suppressed pharmacologically, bile reflux presents greater therapeutic challenges. The combination of bile acids, pancreatic enzymes, and duodenal contents creates a potent inflammatory milieu. Chronic exposure drives metaplastic changes, potentially progressing through dysplasia to malignancy. As such, endoscopic findings from bile reflux include mucosal erythema, bile staining, and in severe cases, ulceration and Barrett’s metaplasia.

Quantification of bile reflux remains challenging. Impedance monitoring can detect non-acid reflux events, particularly important for monitoring bile reflux. However, similar to pH testing, probe placement in an altered anatomy can be technically difficult. Bilitec monitoring provides objective data but requires specialized equipment which is not widely available. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy can demonstrate reflux patterns but lacks standardization for post-esophagectomy anatomy (47,48,51,52). Therefore, most clinicians rely on endoscopic findings and clinical correlations.

Management options are limited and often unsatisfactory. No guidelines specifically address bile reflux. Lifestyle modifications such as elevating head of bed and avoiding late meals and fatty foods may provide temporary relief. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) currently has the strongest emerging evidence for management of bile reflux. A meta-analysis by Wu et al. that included 14 studies, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials, reported the efficacy of UDCA in decreasing the number of bile reflux episodes and duration, as well as related symptoms (53). Cholestyramine binds bile acids but causes bloating and constipation. Aluminum-containing antacids provide modest benefit. Baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid type B agonist, reduces transient sphincter relaxation, but its role post esophagectomy is unclear. Promotility agents theoretically reduce duodenogastric reflux but show minimal efficacy in practice (54-56).

Surgical diversion remains the definitive treatment for severe bile reflux. Roux-en-Y reconstruction, creating a 60 to 80 cm jejunal limb anastomosed to the distal stomach, effectively diverts bile. The procedure carries significant morbidity in a reoperated field but can dramatically improve symptoms of nausea/vomiting, regurgitation, and aspiration pneumonia and quality of life in selected patients (49,57). Careful patient selection and realistic expectation setting are crucial. A thorough multidisciplinary evaluation is needed to select appropriate patients for Roux-en-Y diversion. Nutritionist assessment provides proper dietary counseling and suggestions for lifestyle modifications prior to surgical correction. Gastroenterologists can optimize medical management for those with persistent symptoms and offer pertinent testing such as with Bilitec and endoscopic evaluation as deemed necessary (27). However, those with severe symptoms refractory to conservative management or those with complications such as recurrent aspirations, ulcerative esophagitis, and fistulization should be considered for diversion (57-59).

Paraconduit hernia

Paraconduit hernia represents another important complication of esophagectomy, characterized by herniation of abdominal contents through the diaphragmatic hiatus adjacent to the neo-esophagus. Prevalence is estimated around 2–15%, with the risk increasing as survival becomes more prolonged 1–2 years after an esophagectomy (60,61). Herniation typically occurs on the left side, and a majority of patients are asymptomatic. When symptoms do occur, however, most patients report experiencing chest or abdominal pain, dysphagia, and/or reflux (60,62,63).

Not surprisingly, technical factors that increase hiatal opening increases the risk for paraconduit hernia. For instance, previous studies using retrospective multivariate analyses showed that extended crural resection and extended lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy, transhiatal approach and laparoscopic surgery were associated with greater risk. The latter is thought to be a result of lower intra-abdominal adhesion formation (64,65).

Diagnosis of paraconduit hernia is based on radiographic findings, typically using computed tomography (CT) scans. A watch and wait approach can be safely pursued for patients with an asymptomatic hernia (60). When strangulation of the hernia content occurs, it results in severe obstructive symptoms and warrants an emergency operation. Other indications for surgical repair include persistent symptoms. Both laparoscopic and open techniques for repair have been described and can be successfully performed either with or without the use of mesh (60,66).

Conduit dysfunction

Conduit twist represents a technical complication requiring prompt recognition. During conduit creation and pull-up, orientation must be carefully maintained. Twist greater than 180 degrees typically causes acute ischemia and requires immediate revision. Lesser degrees may present with dysphagia, slow emptying, or intermittent obstruction. Diagnosis relies on careful interpretation of contrast studies and CT imaging, looking for abnormal orientation of the staple line or spiral configuration of gastric folds.

Additional conduit dysfunctions include redundancy, tortuosity, and functional obstruction. These issues often develop insidiously as the conduit elongates over time. Patients report food “sticking”, regurgitation of undigested food, and weight loss. Severe cases develop aspirations from stasis. Contrast studies show retained food, dilated conduit, and delayed emptying. The horizontal portion of intrathoracic conduits particularly predisposes to stasis.

Management depends on underlying anatomy. Endoscopic evaluation allows for assessment of conduit viability and anatomic problems. Nasogastric decompression may be necessary for acute presentations. Dietary modification to liquids reduces symptoms but is not sustainable long-term. Endoscopic stenting has been used for anastomotic leaks or fistulas, anastomotic stricture, obstruction related to angulation, or conduit necrosis and can provide temporary improvement. However, it is not always a definitive solution, and risk of stent migration should be considered (67-69). Endoscopic plication is another option for patients with dilated conduits that contribute to poor drainage and delayed conduit emptying (70). However, evidence on endoscopic management of conduit dysfunction stems entirely on retrospective studies or case series that form the basis of current recommendations (28,71).

Surgical revision for conduit dysfunction requires careful planning. Conduit tubularization, removing redundant tissue while preserving blood supply, can be effective. More extensive reconstruction including conduit replacement is occasionally necessary but carries substantial morbidity. Patient selection focusing on those with preserved performance status and reasonable life expectancy is crucial.

Nutritional deficiency

Nutritional and metabolic consequences accumulate insidiously after esophagectomy. Multiple mechanisms contribute: reduced oral intake from early satiety, malabsorption from rapid transit, and micronutrient deficiencies from altered absorption sites. Risk is high, especially during the first 6 months following surgery. Weight loss averaging 10–16% is typical, with some patients experiencing more severe protein-calorie malnutrition (72,73).

Micronutrient deficiencies require particular attention. Iron deficiency is common and the causes multifactorial, resulting from reduced gastric acid secretion, altered iron absorption, inadequate dietary intake, and inflammatory state. Many of these changes are inherent to the procedure itself due to vagal degeneration, partial devascularization, and resection of the gastric fundus. Vitamin B12 deficiency develops from loss of intrinsic factor production. Fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies occur with pancreatic insufficiency or bile salt deconjugation. Calcium and vitamin D deficiencies predispose to metabolic bone disease (74-76).

Monitoring of weight and comprehensive nutritional assessment should be routine. Beyond basic parameters, micronutrient levels, body composition analysis, and functional assessments provide valuable information. Multidisciplinary teamwork with involvement of a nutritionist in the immediate and long-term postoperative period for appropriate monitoring and individualized counseling may be beneficial. Oral supplementation suffices for most patients, though some require enteral support (27,77,78). Jejunostomy tubes placed during esophagectomy provide access, if needed (27). Parenteral nutrition is rarely necessary outside of major complications.

Malignancy

Cancer development in the neo-esophagus represents a devastating late complication. Incidence estimates range from 0.5–3%, likely underestimating true risk as survival improves (79). Multiple mechanisms contribute: prior radiation, chronic inflammation from reflux, bile acid exposure driving metaplasia, and field cancerization effects. Gastric conduits develop adenocarcinoma while colon conduits may develop either adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma at the anastomotic site.

Presentation often occurs 5–10 years post-esophagectomy, though earlier cases are reported. Symptoms mimic benign complications—dysphagia, weight loss, and bleeding. This overlap delays diagnosis, contributing to poor outcomes. Endoscopic surveillance detects early lesions but optimal intervals remain undefined and their benefit in detecting early recurrences and improving survival remains unclear (80,81). The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommends endoscopic evaluation as clinically indicated with routine surveillance reserved for those who underwent endoscopic resection or ablation or definitive chemoradiation (27).

Management depends on stage and patient factors. Early lesions may be amenable to endoscopic resection, though technical challenges in altered anatomy increase perforation risk. Advanced lesions require systemic therapy as surgical options are extremely limited. Outcomes remain poor, emphasizing the importance of prevention and early detection.

Comprehensive management strategies

Successful management of post-esophagectomy functional syndromes requires systematic approaches integrating multiple disciplines. Surgical expertise addresses anatomical complications while gastroenterologists manage functional disorders. Dietitians optimize nutrition within physiologic constraints. Speech therapists assist with swallowing rehabilitation. This collaborative model improves outcomes compared to fragmented care.

Structured follow-up protocols ensure timely syndrome detection. Early postoperative visits focus on acute complications and nutritional support. Three-month assessment evaluates for developing strictures and early syndromes. Annual long-term follow-up combines oncologic surveillance with functional assessment. Symptom questionnaires such as CEQ, EAT and Eckardt scores completed before visits improve detection of subtle complaints patients may not spontaneously report. Routine surveillance with imaging should be considered every 6 months for up to 2 years, then annually for up to 5 years according to the NCCN guidelines. Endoscopic surveillance after an esophagectomy is typically not routine but should be performed based on symptoms or radiographic findings (27).

Patient education empowers self-management. Understanding expected symptoms and warning signs promotes appropriate care seeking. Dietary education extends beyond basic guidelines to practical meal planning. Written materials reinforcing verbal instruction improve retention. Involving caregivers helps them recognize their crucial support role.

Medical management follows evidence-based algorithms while recognizing individual variation. Empiric therapy for common syndromes is reasonable, but persistent symptoms warrant objective evaluation. Combination therapy addressing multiple mechanisms often proves necessary. Regular reassessment allows therapy optimization as syndromes evolve.

Interventional procedures, whether endoscopic or surgical, require careful patient selection. Technical feasibility must be balanced against patient factors including performance status and prognosis. Informed consent discussions should address both potential benefits and limitations of interventions in altered anatomy. Referral to experienced centers for complex revisions improves outcomes.

Prevention and surgical considerations

Prevention begins with performing meticulous surgical technique. Conduit construction emphasizing straight orientation and appropriate diameter reduce later dysfunction. Careful handling preserves blood supply, reducing ischemic complications and conduit necrosis. Anastomotic techniques minimizing tension and ensuring good perfusion reduce stricture risk. Some technical modifications show promise—narrow gastric tubes may reduce thoracic stomach syndrome and reflux while maintaining adequate emptying compared to use of the whole stomach (82).

The pylorus management debate continues without a clear resolution. Routine drainage procedures prevent some cases of delayed emptying and aspiration but may worsen bile reflux. Minimally invasive approaches reduce some complications while potentially increasing others. Decreased adhesions may increase paraconduit hernia risk but improve long-term conduit function. Enhanced visualization facilitates precise technique but learning curves impact outcomes. As experience accumulates, technique modifications specific to minimizing long-term syndromes are emerging.

Enhanced recovery protocols optimize early outcomes and may impact syndrome development. Preoperative nutritional optimization builds reserves for postoperative challenges. Standardized postoperative feeding protocols reduce variation and identify problems early. Early mobilization and pulmonary hygiene may reduce respiratory complications contributing to long-term dysfunction.

Future directions and emerging therapies

The growing advances in surgical technology offer a chance to reduce post-esophagectomy complications. Robotic platforms provide enhanced visualization and precise dissection, potentially preserving neural structures currently sacrificed. Image guidance and fluorescence techniques may better delineate anatomy (83,84). Whether technical improvements translate to functional benefits requires prospective evaluation.

Regenerative medicine approaches remain investigational but hold promise. Tissue engineering might create more physiologic conduits, maintaining some peristaltic function. Neural reconstruction or stimulation could restore some coordination. Stem cell therapies might enhance healing and reduce fibrosis. While currently experimental, these approaches may revolutionize reconstruction (85,86).

Pharmacologic innovation targets specific syndrome mechanisms. Novel prokinetics with different mechanisms may prove effective in denervated conduits. Bile acid modulators could reduce toxicity while maintaining physiologic functions. Targeted anti-fibrotic agents such as mitomycin C or pirfenidone might prevent stricture formation (87,88). Biomarker development may identify patients at highest risk for specific syndromes, allowing preventive interventions.

Digital health technologies enable better syndrome monitoring. Smartphone applications tracking symptoms provide real-time data. Wearable devices monitoring physiologic parameters may detect problems before clinical presentation. Telemedicine facilitates follow-up for distant patients. Artificial intelligence analyzing patterns may predict syndrome development allowing earlier intervention (89-91).

Strengths and limitations

There are several strengths to this review paper. First off, it provides an extensive, overarching synthesis of the current literature and evidence on post-esophagectomy functional disorders, encompassing topics such as conduit problems or nutritional deficiencies after esophagectomy that are not readily covered in other review papers. It ties in the physiologic mechanisms behind various clinical manifestations of these disorders in order to bridge the gap between operative outcomes and functional recovery. The discussion on different surgical approaches and reconstructive techniques provides a broader perspective on the influences of operative factors on postoperative function.

However, there are also several limitations that must be acknowledged. The available literature on management of post-esophagectomy functional disorders is limited. Many of the studies reported are retrospective in nature or single-institution experiences with relatively small sample sizes, limiting their generalizability. Many of the recommendations highlighted are based on expert consensus rather than concrete evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. In addition, because many of these disorders are functional and rely on patient-reported symptoms, correlating them to objective measures to establish optimal management strategies may be difficult. As a result, while this review captures the current state of knowledge on post-esophagectomy functional disorders, these limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting these findings.

Conclusions

Post-esophagectomy functional disorders represent the inevitable consequences of replacing a complex organ with simpler conduits. Understanding their pathophysiology, symptomatology, and management options is essential for clinicians caring for the growing population of esophagectomy survivors. While perfect restoration of normal function remains impossible, systematic approaches to prevention, early detection, and evidence-based management can optimize outcomes.

Multidisciplinary care models best address the complex needs of these patients. Integration of surgical, medical, nutritional, and psychosocial support improves both objective outcomes and quality of life. As survival continues improving, focus must expand beyond oncologic outcomes to optimize functional status.

Future research should prioritize prevention strategies and novel therapeutic approaches. Surgical technique modifications, enhanced recovery protocols, and emerging technologies offer hope for reducing syndrome burden. Until more physiologic reconstruction options become possible, comprehensive management of existing functional disorders remains paramount in delivering optimal care to esophagectomy patients.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Peer Review File: Available at https://aoe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/aoe-2025-1-41/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://aoe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/aoe-2025-1-41/coif). M.S. serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Annals of Esophagus from May 2025 to April 2027. 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. Ukegjini K, Vetter D, Fehr R, et al. Functional syndromes and symptom-orientated aftercare after esophagectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021;406:2249-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Poghosyan T, Gaujoux S, Chirica M, et al. Functional disorders and quality of life after esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction for cancer. J Visc Surg 2011;148:e327-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Lerut TE, van Lanschot JJ. Chronic symptoms after subtotal or partial oesophagectomy: diagnosis and treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2004;18:901-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Boshier PR, Klevebro F, Savva KV, et al. Assessment of Health Related Quality of Life and Digestive Symptoms in Long-term, Disease Free Survivors After Esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2022;275:e140-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Collard JM, Romagnoli R, Otte JB, et al. The denervated stomach as an esophageal substitute is a contractile organ. Ann Surg 1998;227:33-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Lee HS, Kim MS, Lee JM, et al. Intrathoracic gastric emptying of solid food after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:443-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Mroz CT, Kelly KA. The role of the extrinsic antral nerves in the regulation of gastric emptying. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977;145:369-77.
8. Antonoff MB, Puri V, Meyers BF, et al. Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better? Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:1950-7; discussion 1657-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Arya S, Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, et al. The impact of pyloric drainage on clinical outcome following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Dis Esophagus 2015;28:326-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Bolger JC, Lau H, Yeung JC, et al. Omission of intraoperative pyloric procedures in minimally invasive esophagectomy: assessing the impact on patients. Dis Esophagus 2023;36:doac061. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Saeed SH, Sinnamon AJ, Fontaine JP, et al. Intra-operative pyloric BOTOX injection versus pyloric surgery for prevention of delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2024;38:6046-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Palmes D, Weilinghoff M, Colombo-Benkmann M, et al. Effect of pyloric drainage procedures on gastric passage and bile reflux after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2007;392:135-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Luketich JD, Sarkaria ID, Levy RM, et al. A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of Pyloroplasty Versus No Pyloroplasty in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy or Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2026;283:569-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Yasuda T, Matsuda A, Hagiwara N, et al. Jejunal and colonic reconstruction after esophagectomy in difficult gastric conduit: a multicenter study and meta-analysis. Surg Today 2026;56:74-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Doki Y, Okada K, Miyata H, et al. Long-term and short-term evaluation of esophageal reconstruction using the colon or the jejunum in esophageal cancer patients after gastrectomy. Dis Esophagus 2008;21:132-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Jun W, Wei W, Weibing W, et al. Clinical outcome of using gastric remnant or jejunum or colon conduit in surgery for esophageal carcinoma with previous gastrectomy. J Surg Oncol 2017;115:729-37.
17. Banki F, Mason RJ, DeMeester SR, et al. Vagal-sparing esophagectomy: a more physiologic alternative. Ann Surg 2002;236:324-35; discussion 335-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Yuen MTY, Tsang RK, Wong IYH, et al. Long-term pharyngeal dysphagia after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer-an investigation using videofluoroscopic swallow studies. Dis Esophagus 2019;
19. Kaneoka A, Yang S, Inokuchi H, et al. Presentation of oropharyngeal dysphagia and rehabilitative intervention following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Dis Esophagus 2018;31:doy050. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Sugase T, Miyata H, Sugimura K, et al. Risk factors and long-term postoperative outcomes in patients with postoperative dysphagia after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2022;6:633-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Sudarshan M, Tasnim S, Ramji S, et al. Development and validation of a universal esophageal patient-reported outcome measure: The Cleveland Clinic Esophageal Questionnaire (CEQ). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024;167:1490-1497.e17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Belafsky PC, Mouadeb DA, Rees CJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:919-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Rice TW. Anastomotic stricture complicating esophagectomy. Thorac Surg Clin 2006;16:63-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Briel JW, Tamhankar AP, Hagen JA, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for ischemia, leak, and stricture of esophageal anastomosis: gastric pull-up versus colon interposition. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:536-41; discussion 541-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. van der Aa DC, Boonstra J, Eshuis WJ, et al. Risk Factors for Benign Anastomotic Stenosis After Esophagectomy for Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2025;32:5919-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Nishikawa K, Fujita T, Yuda M, et al. Early prediction of complex benign anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy using early postoperative endoscopic findings. Surg Endosc 2020;34:3460-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Bentrem DJ, et al. Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023;21:393-422. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of dysphagia. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:191-201. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Tulman AB, Boyce HW Jr. Complications of esophageal dilation and guidelines for their prevention. Gastrointest Endosc 1981;27:229-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
30. Williams VA, Watson TJ, Zhovtis S, et al. Endoscopic and symptomatic assessment of anastomotic strictures following esophagectomy and cervical esophagogastrostomy. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1470-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Anandavadivelan P, Wikman A, Malberg K, et al. Prevalence and intensity of dumping symptoms and their association with health-related quality of life following surgery for oesophageal cancer. Clin Nutr 2021;40:1233-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Scarpellini E, Arts J, Karamanolis G, et al. International consensus on the diagnosis and management of dumping syndrome. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2020;16:448-66. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. Tack J, Arts J, Caenepeel P, et al. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of postoperative dumping syndrome. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;6:583-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
34. Sigstad H. A clinical diagnostic index in the diagnosis of the dumping syndrome. Changes in plasma volume and blood sugar after a test meal. Acta Med Scand 1970;188:479-86.
35. van Beek AP, Emous M, Laville M, et al. Dumping syndrome after esophageal, gastric or bariatric surgery: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Obes Rev 2017;18:68-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
36. Benedix F, Willems T, Kropf S, et al. Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017;402:547-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Konradsson M, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bruns C, et al. Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process. Dis Esophagus 2020;33:doz074. [Crossref] [PubMed]
38. Johansson J, Sloth M, Bajc M, et al. Radioisotope evaluation of the esophageal remnant and the gastric conduit after gastric pull-up esophagectomy. Surgery 1999;125:297-303.
39. Lacy BE, Tack J, Gyawali CP. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Medically Refractory Gastroparesis: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:491-500. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Bhutani MS, Ejaz S, Cazacu IM, et al. Endoscopic Intrapyloric Botulinum Toxin Injection with Pyloric Balloon Dilation for Symptoms of Delayed Gastric Emptying after Distal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A 10-Year Experience. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:5743. [Crossref] [PubMed]
41. Nevins EJ, Rao R, Nicholson J, et al. Endoscopic Botulinum toxin as a treatment for delayed gastric emptying following oesophagogastrectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2020;102:693-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Sivakumar J, Alnimri F, Liu DS, et al. Comprehensive review of therapeutic procedures for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2025;29:102046. [Crossref] [PubMed]
43. Yu Y, Yu F, Liang R, et al. The Trajectory of Reflux and its Associating Factors in Patients After Esophagectomy Based on Salivary Pepsin-Testing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2025;32:10084-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Okuyama M, Motoyama S, Maruyama K, et al. Proton pump inhibitors relieve and prevent symptoms related to gastric acidity after esophagectomy. World J Surg 2008;32:246-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117:27-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
46. Fass R. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. N Engl J Med 2022;387:1207-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
47. Nishimura K, Tanaka T, Tsubuku T, et al. Reflux esophagitis after esophagectomy: impact of duodenogastroesophageal reflux. Dis Esophagus 2012;25:381-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
48. Yuasa N, Sasaki E, Ikeyama T, et al. Acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:1021-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
49. Tasnim S, Raja S, Murthy SC, et al. Management of debilitating bile reflux after esophagectomy with Roux-en-Y diversion. JTCVS Tech 2025;34:241-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
50. Wang LS, Huang MH, Huang BS, et al. Gastric substitution for resectable carcinoma of the esophagus: an analysis of 368 cases. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;53:289-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
51. Gutschow CA, Collard JM, Romagnoli R, et al. Bile exposure of the denervated stomach as an esophageal substitute. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:1786-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
52. Barrett MW, Myers JC, Watson DI, et al. Detection of bile reflux: in vivo validation of the Bilitec fibreoptic system. Dis Esophagus 2000;13:44-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
53. Wu ZY, Zhang MH, Li Y, et al. Clinical Efficacy of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Bile Reflux Gastritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2026;71:551-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
54. Meshkinpour H, Elashoff J, Stewart H 3rd, et al. Effect of cholestyramine on the symptoms of reflux gastritis. A randomized, double blind, crossover study. Gastroenterology 1977;73:441-3.
55. Goldstein F, Thornton JJ 3rd, Abramson J, et al. Bile reflux gastritis and esophagitis in patients without prior gastric surgery, with pilot study of the therapeutic effects of metoclopramide. Am J Gastroenterol 1981;76:407-11.
56. Nicolai JJ, Speelman P, Tytgat GN, et al. Comparison of the combination of cholestyramine/alginates with placebo in the treatment of postgastrectomy biliary reflux gastritis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1981;21:189-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
57. Gallanis AF, Bowden C, Sharma D, et al. Roux limb revision for recalcitrant bile reflux after total gastrectomy. Surgery 2025;181:109214. [Crossref] [PubMed]
58. D'Journo XB, Martin J, Gaboury L, et al. Roux-en-Y diversion for intractable reflux after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:1646-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
59. Silva TS, Forrester JA, DeSouza M, et al. Hepaticojejunostomy to Treat Medically Refractory Bile Reflux After Esophagectomy With Gastric Pull-Up. Am Surg 2026;92:1337-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
60. Barron JO, Ramji S, Nemoyer R, et al. Paraconduit hernia following esophagectomy: Is it safe to watch and wait? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024;167:1628-1637.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
61. Ganeshan DM, Correa AM, Bhosale P, et al. Diaphragmatic hernia after esophagectomy in 440 patients with long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:1138-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
62. Gust L, Nafteux P, Allemann P, et al. Hiatal hernia after oesophagectomy: a large European survey. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;55:1104-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
63. Chobarporn T, Qureshi AP, Hunter JG, et al. Post-esophagectomy hiatal hernia following minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients. Surg Endosc 2025;39:2588-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
64. Ahmed R, Elliott JA, Blaser M, et al. Paraconduit hiatus hernia after esophageal cancer surgery: incidence, risk factors, and management. Dis Esophagus 2024;37:doae093. [Crossref] [PubMed]
65. Takeuchi A, Ojima T, Hayata K, et al. Laparoscopic reconstruction in McKeown esophagectomy is a risk factor for postoperative diaphragmatic hernia. Dis Esophagus 2023;36:doad037. [Crossref] [PubMed]
66. Chung SK, Bludevich B, Cherng N, et al. Paraconduit Hiatal Hernia Following Esophagectomy: Incidence, Risk Factors, Outcomes and Repair. J Surg Res 2021;268:276-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
67. Oh HJ, Lim CH, Yoon SB, et al. Temporary self-expandable metallic stent placement in post-gastrectomy complications. Gastric Cancer 2019;22:231-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
68. Tankel J, Amin S, Katz A, et al. Gastric conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: is conduit salvage feasible? Dis Esophagus 2025;38:doaf066. [Crossref] [PubMed]
69. Smith EA, Daly SC, Smith B, et al. The Role of Endoscopic Stent in Management of Postesophagectomy Leaks. Am Surg 2020;86:1411-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
70. Room H, Bhuvanakrishna T, Peristeri D, et al. Endoscopic gastric conduit plication: a novel endoscopic technique for delayed gastric conduit emptying following oesophagectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2026; Epub ahead of print. [Crossref]
71. Spaander MCW, van der Bogt RD, Baron TH, et al. Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021. Endoscopy 2021;53:751-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
72. Elliott JA, Docherty NG, Eckhardt HG, et al. Weight Loss, Satiety, and the Postprandial Gut Hormone Response After Esophagectomy: A Prospective Study. Ann Surg 2017;266:82-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
73. Takeoka T, Kanemura T, Sugase T, et al. Clinical impact of postoperative changes in body composition on long-term outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. Clin Nutr 2024;43:2188-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
74. Wang LS, Lin HY, Chang CJ, et al. Effects of en bloc esophagectomy on nutritional and immune status in patients with esophageal carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 1998;67:90-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
75. Blonk L, Gooszen JAH, Fakkert RA, et al. Micronutrient deficiencies and anemia in the follow-up after gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Dis Esophagus 2024;37:doae053. [Crossref] [PubMed]
76. van Hagen P, de Jonge R, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Vitamin B12 deficiency after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2017;30:1-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
77. Teixeira Farinha H, Bouriez D, Grimaud T, et al. Gastro-Intestinal Disorders and Micronutrient Deficiencies following Oncologic Esophagectomy and Gastrectomy. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:3554. [Crossref] [PubMed]
78. Mortensen K, Nilsson M, Slim K, et al. Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Br J Surg 2014;101:1209-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
79. Ho C, Tong DK, Tsang JS, et al. Post-esophagectomy gastric conduit cancers: treatment experiences and literature review. Dis Esophagus 2014;27:141-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
80. Elliott JA, Markar SR, Klevebro F, et al. An International Multicenter Study Exploring Whether Surveillance After Esophageal Cancer Surgery Impacts Oncological and Quality of Life Outcomes (ENSURE). Ann Surg 2023;277:e1035-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
81. Kamaludin A, Donlon NE, Kavanagh M, et al. Single-center experience in implementation of endoscopic surveillance protocol after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2023;36:doac064. [Crossref] [PubMed]
82. Zhang W, Yu D, Peng J, et al. Gastric-tube versus whole-stomach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017;12:e0173416. [Crossref] [PubMed]
83. Mederos MA, de Virgilio MJ, Shenoy R, et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e2129228. [Crossref] [PubMed]
84. Kooij CD, Goense L, Kingma BF, et al. Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Current Best Practice. Dig Surg 2025;42:204-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
85. Dua KS, Hogan WJ, Aadam AA, et al. In-vivo oesophageal regeneration in a human being by use of a non-biological scaffold and extracellular matrix. Lancet 2016;388:55-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
86. Chian KS, Leong MF, Kono K. Regenerative medicine for oesophageal reconstruction after cancer treatment. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:e84-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
87. Hirano S, Higashimori A, Nagami Y, et al. Pirfenidone prevents esophageal stricture by inhibiting nucleotide binding oligomerization domain like receptor protein 3 inflammasome activation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;37:1096-106. [Crossref] [PubMed]
88. Hoffman RS, Burns MM, Gosselin S. Ingestion of Caustic Substances. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1739-48. [Crossref] [PubMed]
89. Chaar MKA, Yost KJ, Lee MK, et al. Developing & integrating a mobile application tool into a survivorship clinic for esophageal cancer patients. J Thorac Dis 2023;15:2240-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
90. de Angelis P, Hompe E, Krause K, et al. The implementation of a mobile application and web-based platform for peri-operative patient-tailored education and tracking of patient-reported outcomes after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2026;39:doaf132. [Crossref] [PubMed]
91. Sewell M, Boerner T, Harrington C, et al. Remote Symptom Monitoring in Thoracic Surgery Patients After Discharge. Ann Surg 2025;281:1063-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]