- Pictorial Review
- Open access
- Published:
Early postoperative imaging after non-bariatric gastric resection: a primer for radiologists
Insights into Imaging volume 8, pages 393–404 (2017)
Abstract
Surgical resection represents the mainstay treatment and only potentially curative option for gastric carcinoma, and is increasingly performed laparoscopically. Furthermore, other tumours and selected cases of non-malignant disorders of the stomach may require partial or total gastrectomy. Often performed in elderly patients, gastric resection remains a challenging procedure, with significant morbidity (14–43% complication rate) and non-negligible postoperative mortality (approximately 3%). This paper provides an overview of contemporary surgical techniques for non-bariatric gastric resection, reviews and illustrates the expected postoperative imaging appearances, common and unusual complications after partial and total gastrectomy. Albeit cumbersome or unfeasible in severely ill or uncooperative patients, contrast fluoroscopy remains useful to rapidly check for anastomotic patency and integrity. Currently, emphasis is placed on multidetector CT, which comprehensively visualizes the surgically altered anatomy and consistently detects complications such as anastomotic leaks and fistulas, duodenal stump leakage, afferent loop syndrome, haemorrhages, pancreatic fistulas and porto-mesenteric venous thrombosis. Our aim is to help radiologists become familiar with early postoperative imaging, in order to understand the surgically altered anatomy and to differentiate between expected imaging appearances and abnormal changes heralding iatrogenic complications, thus providing a consistent basis for correct choice between conservative, interventional or surgical treatment.
Teaching points
• Radical gastrectomy is associated with frequent postoperative morbidity and non-negligible mortality.
• In cooperative patients fluoroscopy allows checking for anastomotic patency and leaks.
• Multidetector CT with / without oral contrast comprehensively visualizes the operated abdomen.
• Awareness of surgically altered anatomy and expected postoperative appearances is warranted.
• Main complications include anastomotic and duodenal leaks, haemorrhages and pancreatic fistulas.
Introduction
Worldwide, gastric carcinoma (GC) represents one of the leading cancers and accounts for over 900,000 new cases and 723,000 deaths yearly [1]. GC shows dramatic geographic variation, with the highest incidence in China and Japan, parts of South America, Eastern Europe and Russia. Conversely, in North America and Europe this lethal disease has significantly declined because of improved nutrition, food refrigeration, eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection, decreasing tobacco use and alcohol intake. Whereas in the far East early GC detection through screening programs generally allows curative treatment, in the rest of the world most GCs are diagnosed at an advanced stage, resulting in dismal prognosis (27% 5-year survival rate) [1].
Resection with negative surgical margins represents the mainstay treatment and only potentially curative option for localized GCs, combined with adjuvant chemotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy for disease stages IB and higher. Radical gastrectomy remains a challenging surgical procedure with significant postoperative morbidity (14–43% complication rate) and mortality (0.8–12%, mean 3%) [2,3,4,5,6].
Traditionally, early post- gastrectomy imaging was limited to contrast fluoroscopy (CF) to assess anastomotic patency and integrity. More recently, multidetector CT is increasingly adopted to investigate most postoperative abdominal conditions, to comprehensively visualize the surgically altered anatomy and detect iatrogenic complications. However, compared to the literature about bariatric surgery imaging [7,8,9], few reports describe CT techniques and expected and abnormal appearances shortly after radical gastrectomy [10,11,12].
This paper provides an overview of contemporary surgical techniques, reviews and illustrates the expected postoperative imaging findings and complications after partial and total gastrectomy, aiming to provide radiologists with an increased familiarity in the interpretation of early post-gastrectomy CT studies and, ultimately, to limit iatrogenic morbidity.
Overview of gastrectomy techniques
Surgical exploration and aggressive resection of GC with curative intent is undertaken unless medical contraindications exist or preoperative imaging shows metastatic spread or major vascular invasion. Surgical approaches depend on tumour site and extension: tumours of the cardia, proximal and mid-body stomach require total gastrectomy with removal of the entire stomach along with terminal oesophagus and proximal duodenum. Conversely, GCs of the distal body and antrum may be treated by partial gastrectomy, with stapling and division of the stomach at least 6 cm from any macroscopic tumour [2,3,4,5, 13].
Radical gastrectomy is completed with splenectomy and partial pancreatectomy in 17.5% and 7.1% of patients, respectively. The extent of lymphadenectomy remains controversial: compared to standard nodal dissection of perigastric nodes along the lesser and greater curvature, D2 lymphadenectomy is extended along the celiac axis, left gastric, common hepatic and splenic arteries. Gastric resection is sometimes performed to treat uncommon stomach malignancies (gastrointestinal stromal tumours, lymphomas or sarcomas) and selected benign conditions such as refractory peptic ulcers. Very recently, oncologic gastric surgery has also been performed using laparoscopy, resulting in decreased intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stays [2,3,4,5, 14, 15].
Following gastrectomy, the choice of digestive tract anatomic reconstruction depends on the extent of resection. Most total gastrectomies are reconstructed with Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy (EJS), in which a jejunal limb is brought up and re-anastomosed to the distal oesophagus and to the closed duodenal stump (DS) (Fig. 1a). Whereas in “high” subtotal gastrectomy the small-sized gastric remnant is connected to a Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy (GJS) (Fig. 1b), “low” partial gastrectomy with preservation of the gastric fundus may be reconstructed using a Billroth II GJS (Fig. 1c) technique, with DS directly connected to the remnant stomach. According to the surgeon’s preference, anastomoses may be either hand-sewn or stapled [5, 13, 16].
What to expect after radical gastrectomy
The likelihood of postoperative morbidity is strongly influenced by extended operation time, which acts as a surrogate of challenging surgical manoeuvres. No significant differences in complication rates exist with regard to resection extension between total, proximal or distal gastrectomy. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted techniques are not associated with significantly different morbidity, particularly concerning pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage and intra-abdominal abscesses. Conversely, splenectomy and pancreatectomy represent risk factors for additional morbidity [2,3,4,5, 14, 15]. The effect of extended lymphadenectomy remains controversial: several studies showed that D2 nodal dissection is associated with higher postoperative morbidity, reoperation rates and mortality, specifically with increased likelihood of pulmonary complications, wound infection, failed anastomosis and pancreatic disorders [17, 18].
Similarly to other major abdominal surgeries, respiratory problems including pleural effusion, atelectasis and pneumonia commonly occur after oncologic gastrectomy, particularly in elderly men with chronic obstructive lung disease [4, 19].
The most important specific post-gastrectomy complications include anastomotic and DS leakage, pancreatic fistula, acute pancreatitis and intra-abdominal haemorrhage, and ultimately require reintervention in 25% of cases, particularly because of leakage, abscesses and bleeding. Anastomotic complications are most feared and account for most of septic morbidity and mortality [2,3,4,5,6, 20].
The commonest manifestations of intra-abdominal complications include physical and laboratory (leukocytosis, increasing C-reactive protein levels) signs of sepsis within the first 7 to 10 postoperative days (PODs). Bleeding is generally heralded by hypotension, dropping haematocrit, blood from nasogastric or drainage tubes. Most surgeons increasingly feel that abdominal pain and physical findings are relatively insensitive and increasingly rely on early postoperative imaging. When discussing indication and timing of post-surgical studies, asking the surgeon to draw the reconstructed anatomy generally proves helpful to interpret fluoroscopic and CT appearances [4, 21].
Early post-gastrectomy imaging: techniques and normal appearances
Contrast fluoroscopy
Fluoroscopic examination after oral administration of water-soluble CM has been largely adopted to check for possible anastomotic leakage. Albeit several institutions routinely perform CF within five PODs, testing of anastomosis should currently be obviated in asymptomatic patients [22, 23]. According to radiologist’s preference, either low-osmolar iodinated CM or diatrizoate meglumine may be used, but the latter is hyperosmolar and may induce pulmonary oedema if aspirated [24, 25].
Rapid sequences in frontal and oblique views are acquired during ingestion or sipping of CM via a straw, with the patient standing or sitting on the fluoroscopy table: unfortunately, CF is very cumbersome when the recently operated patient is unable to cooperate or cannot swallow [24]. Compared to the EJS, which is generally recognized at the level or immediately below the diaphragmatic hiatus (Figs. 2 and 3), the position of a GJS is more variable and requires higher degrees of left- or right-sided patient rotation (Figs. 4, 5 and 6).
After uncomplicated partial gastrectomy, delayed CM passage through the GJS, incomplete emptying and fluid-fluid level in the gastric remnant are fairly common, most usually self-limiting and secondary to ileus or anastomotic oedema, and generally do not represent a complication (Fig. 4); however, in our experience anastomotic ulceration may have a similar appearance and may ultimately result in stricture (Fig. 7) [5].
Albeit perianastomotic extravasation (Fig. 8) is nearly 100% specific for leakage, a pitfall of CF is represented by misinterpretation of the anastomotic recess of an end-to-side reconstruction as extraluminal CM (Figs. 3 and 4) [12].
Early post-gastrectomy CT
Nowadays, in most post-surgical situations, multidetector CT rapidly and consistently provides panoramic visualization of postoperative abdominal changes, and generally adds crucial information for diagnosis of iatrogenic complications [10, 11, 26].
Due to high prevalence of pleuropulmonary changes (Fig. 8), the CT acquisition should encompass the entire abdomen and lung bases. Some authors reported that early post-gastrectomy CT without oral CM is easier, faster and safer to perform shortly, particularly in bed-ridden uncooperative patients. Precontrast scans and lung or viewing with bone window settings easily allow identifying metallic surgical staples and intraperitoneal air, and differentiating between fluid and haemorrhagic collections. Unless contraindicated by allergy or renal failure, CM-enhanced acquisition, at least in the portal-venous phase, is warranted. When clinical or laboratory findings suggest possible postoperative bleeding, an additional arterial-phase scanning may allow detection of active haemorrhage. In our experience, CT review along axial, coronal and sagittal planes may be beneficial.
A useful checklist for CT interpretation is provided in Table 1. Postoperative pneumoperitoneum is a common, expected finding which typically distributes freely and resolves within a few days. On plain radiographs or CT, intraperitoneal air may last up to 9–10 PODs, but decreases on serial imaging. Conversely, persisting or increasing gas raises concern for anastomotic dehiscence or visceral perforation. Following laparoscopy, the amount of expected intraperitoneal air is less compared to open surgery, because insufflated CO2 is rapidly absorbed; conversely, subcutaneous emphysema may result from insufflation in the abdominal wall [26, 27].
Borrowing from experience in bariatric surgery, oral administration of positive water-soluble CM may improve the CT performance, particularly regarding anastomotic leaks. If the patient can stand and swallow without risk of aspiration, we instruct him or her to drink low-osmolar CM such as 3% diluted iopamidol or iohexol 5–10 min prior to CT. Lack of extraluminal CM is strongly consistent with anastomosis integrity (Fig. 9). Finally, CT results strongly influence reoperation rate, mortality, duration of postoperative fasting and hospitalization [10,11,12].
Anastomotic complications
Anastomotic leaks
Leakage resulting from breakdown of a suture line secondary to either inadequate technique, excessive tension or ischaemia, occurs after 3–4% of gastrectomies with either hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis, generally as an early complication within the first PODs;. Incidence of leakage may reach 21% with routine use of CT. Albeit variably symptomatic, anastomotic dehiscence represents an independent predictor of survival with 10–20% associated mortality [2,3,4].
The fluoroscopic hallmark of anastomotic leak is represented by CM extravasation adjacent to a GJS or EJS (Fig. 8), with either contained collection or free dispersal in the adjacent surgical cavity. However, since the reported sensitivity varies in the range 22% to 67%, negative CF findings do not rule out the possibility of leakage (Fig. 10) [22].
As discussed above, the use of CT is favoured over CF in uncooperative patients. Even without oral CM, CT is felt to be superior to CF with 89.5% positive predictive value compared to 40%, mostly because CT shows both the anastomosis and the surrounding extraluminal compartment. On CT images the EJS or GJS should be carefully scrutinized for focal discontinuity and mural thickening. Since anastomotic dehiscence leads to the extravasation of enteral material in the surgical site, the most common appearance includes variably sized air-fluid collections, abscesses or inflammatory changes which abut the EJS or GJS (Figs. 11 and 12) and tend to extend into the lesser sac, left subphrenic, gastrohepatic and gastrosplenic spaces [10,11,12].
Alternatively, anastomotic leak may sometimes appear as generalized peritonitis with free fluid and intraperitoneal air (Fig. 10). Suspicious findings which support a diagnosis of visceral perforation over residual postoperative air in the peritoneal cavity include persistence or increase of pneumoperitoneum, particularly if abundant (over 20 cm3) and occupying a single compartment. It has been reported that persistent air after POD 5 associated with leukocytosis has 80% sensitivity for identifying patients requiring re-operation [26, 27].
Albeit plain CT without enteral CM is rapidly performed even in critically ill patients, according to some reports positive oral CM improves the CT performance: leakage is heralded by extraluminal CM collecting nearby the EJS or GJS, or dissecting in the postoperative neocompartment (Figs. 8 and 13) [10,11,12, 22, 23].
In the past, diagnosis of anastomotic dehiscence warranted immediate surgical re-exploration with toilette, closure of leakage or redo anastomosis, placement of drainage tubes and enteral feeding. More recently, in stable patients with contained leaks and no peritonitis, non-operative management is increasingly considered: endoscopic stenting (Fig. 11) is becoming the preferred solution, and other options include endoscopic clipping (Fig. 14) and percutaneous drainage of fluid collections. Reoperation is currently reserved for wide dehiscence, peritonitis or failure of nonoperative management [4, 12, 23].
Anastomotic fistulas
Well-known to radiologists, fistulas represent abnormal communications between the stomach and other structures such as the skin, bronchial tree or pleural cavity, which allow passage of enteral fluids. After gastrectomy, subphrenic infection secondary to anastomotic leak may occasionally be complicated by formation of gastro-cutaneous, gastro-bronchial or gastro-pleural (Fig. 14) fistulas, which represent rare occurrences described in sparse case reports. Albeit CF studies may show abnormal passage of CM through the fistula, CT more effectively depicts associated changes and consequences such as subphrenic abscess, pneumonia or empyema (Fig. 14) [10, 11].
Anastomotic ulcers and strictures
Anastomotic ulcers may develop after gastrectomy, but are unreliably depicted by imaging compared to endoscopy. Ulcers plus ischemia and scar formation may ultimately lead to the formation of an anastomotic stricture at the GJS (Fig. 7). Anastomotic strictures develop in up to 3–4.4% of operated patients, generally present weeks or months after surgery and manifest with nausea, vomiting, dysphagia or post-prandial pain [3].
Duodenal stump complications
Afferent loop syndrome
The uncommon afferent loop syndrome generally occurs after Billroth II reconstruction from obstruction of the afferent blind DS by adhesions, internal hernia, intraluminal blood or bezoar, anastomotic kinking, ulcer or stricture, and is heralded by fluid-filled duodenal dilatation (Fig. 15) [10, 11].
Duodenal stump leakage
A potentially worrisome (6–11.7% mortality) complication of Billroth II reconstruction, DS leakage occurs after 3% of partial gastrectomies and corresponds to the spread of bile from the blind-ending DS because of technical failure, ischemia or distal obstruction, causing local and ultimately peritoneal irritation [28]. Usual CT appearance includes a fluid collection abutting the stapled DS and extending to the right sub-hepatic or peripancreatic spaces (Figs. 6 and 9) [10, 11].
Currently, conservative treatment (parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, octreotide, suction drains and percutaneous drainage of abscesses) is successful in over 90% of cases; reoperation is reserved for septic patients or failure of conservative approach [4, 28].
Vascular complications
Haemorrhage
Blood loss after gastrectomy may represent a life-threatening complication and generally results from inadequate haemostasis, particularly ligation of small feeding vessels. As it occurs at a staple line or anastomosis, early postoperative haemorrhage is most usually intraluminal rather than in the surgical site or peritoneal cavity. Conversely, delayed bleeding is mostly due to marginal anastomotic ulcers. CT findings include intraluminal high-attenuation blood or clots in the bowel (Fig. 15), sometimes extravascular CM “blush” corresponding to active bleeding. The latter sign and endoscopically occult haemorrhage represent indications for transarterial embolisation, particularly in patients unfit for surgical reintervention [4, 29].
Pancreatic fistula and pancreatitis
Occurring after 7.6% of all gastrectomies, postoperative pancreatic fistula corresponds to leaking pancreatic secretions and develops secondary to resection or injury to the pancreatic capsule. Fatty pancreas and pancreas divisum are the key risk factors. The clinical and laboratory diagnosis requires any measurable output from peripancreatic drainage on or after POD 3 with amylase content over three times the serum amylase; alternatively pancreatic fistula is diagnosed at percutaneous drainage or surgical reintervention [4, 30].
At CT, the usual appearance is a focal fluid collection in the surgical bed, particularly in the lesser sac or adjacent to the pancreas (Fig. 16). Currently, postoperative pancreatic fistula is effectively managed nonsurgically until closure with parenteral nutrition and percutaneous drainage of dominant collections [31,32,33].
Alternatively, acute postoperative pancreatitis may develop in the gland remnant after partial pancreatectomy, and appears as segmental or diffuse enlargement with peripancreatic inflammatory changes and fluid collections extending to the retroperitoneal fasciae and the anterior pararenal space [4].
Conclusion
Albeit CF may still be used as first-line imaging, multidetector CT after radical gastrectomy increasingly allows comprehensive visualization of the operated abdominal compartment and provides a consistent basis for correct choice between conservative, interventional or surgical treatment. In our experience, early post-gastrectomy CT benefits from oral CM administration if permitted by the patient’s conditions and cooperation. Understanding the surgically altered anatomy and knowledge of expected postoperative appearances is crucial to correctly recognizing complications.
References
Smyth EC, Verheji M, Allum WH et al (2016) Gastric cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 27(Suppl 5):v38–v49
Deguchi Y, Fukagawa T, Morita S et al (2012) Identification of risk factors for esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage after gastric surgery. World J Surg 36:1617–1622
Inokuchi M, Otsuki S, Fujimori Y et al (2015) Systematic review of anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. World J Gastroenterol 21:9656–9665
Weledji EP, Verla V (2016) Failure to rescue patients from early critical complications of oesophagogastric cancer surgery. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 7:34–41
Xiong JJ, Altaf K, Javed MA et al (2013) Roux-en-Y versus Billroth I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 19:1124–1134
Zilberstein B, Abbud Ferreira J, Cecconello I (2011) Management or postoperative complications in gastric cancer. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 57:69–74
Gaetke-Udager K, Wasnik AP, Kaza RK et al (2014) A guide to imaging in bariatric surgery. Emerg Radiol 21:309–319
Herron D, Roohipour R (2012) Complications of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. Abdom Imaging 37:712–718
Levine MS, Carucci LR (2014) Imaging of bariatric surgery: normal anatomy and postoperative complications. Radiology 270:327–341
Kim KA, Park CM, Park SW et al (2002) CT findings in the abdomen and pelvis after gastric carcinoma resection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1037–1041
Kim KW, Choi BI, Han JK et al (2002) Postoperative anatomic and pathologic findings at CT following gastrectomy. Radiographics 22:323–336
Kim TH, Kim JH, Shin CI et al (2015) CT findings suggesting anastomotic leak and predicting the recovery period following gastric surgery. Eur Radiol 25:1958–1966
Terrone DG, Lepanto L, Billiard JS et al (2011) A primer to common major gastrointestinal post-surgical anatomy on CT-a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2:631–638
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic revie and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes and completeness of resection. World J Surg 40:148–157
Liang Y, Li G, Chen P et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for early distal gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 81:673–680
Espat NJ, Karpeh M (1998) Reconstruction following total gastrectomy: a review and summary of the randomized prospective clinical trials. Surg Oncol 7:65–69
Kawamura Y, Satoh S, Umeki Y et al (2016) Evaluation of the recurrence pattern of gastric cancer after laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. SpringerPlus 5:821
Jiang L, Yang KH, Chen Y et al (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of extended lymphadenectomy in patients with resectable gastric cancer. Br J Surg 101:595–604
Inokuchi M, Kojima K, Kato K et al (2014) Risk factors for post-operative pulmonary complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 15:314–21
Etoh T, Inomata M, Shiraishi N et al (2010) Revisional surgery after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: review of the literature. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:332–337
Adamina M, Steffen T, Tarantino I et al (2015) Meta-analysis of the predictive value of C-reactive protein for infectious complications in abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 102:590–598
Hogan BA, Winter DC, Broe D et al (2008) Prospective trial comparing contrast swallow, computed tomography and endoscopy to identify anastomotic leak following oesophagogastric surgery. Surg Endosc 22:767–771
Struecker B, Chopra S, Heilmann AC et al (2017) Routine radiologic contrast agent examination after gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not useful. J Gastrointest Surg 21:801–806
Federle MP, Jaffe TA, Davis PL et al (2017) Contrast media for fluoroscopic examinations of the GI and GU tracts: current challenges and recommendations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:90–100
European Society of Urogenital Radiology (2016) ESUR guidelines on contrast media 9.0. Available at: www.esur.org/guidelines.
Hindman NM, Kang S, Parikh MS (2014) Common postoperative findings unique to laparoscopic surgery. Radiographics 34:119–138
Malgras B, Place V, Dohan A et al (2017) Natural history of pneumoperitoneum after laparotomy: findings on multidetector-row computed tomography. World J Surg 41:56–63
Aurello P, Sirimarco D, Magistri P et al (2015) Management of duodenal stump fistula after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 21:7571–7576
Kim KH, Kim MC, Jung GJ et al (2012) Endoscopic treatment and risk factors of postoperative anastomotic bleeding after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Int J Surg 10:593–597
Sato Y, Inokuchi M, Otsuki S et al (2017) Risk factor of pancreatic fistula after radical gastrectomy in the context of fatty pancreas. Dig Surg. doi:10.1159/000455332
Raman SP, Horton KM, Cameron JL et al (2013) CT after pancreaticoduodenectomy: spectrum of normal findings and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:2–13
Smith SL, Hampson F, Duxbury M et al (2008) Computed tomography after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple’s procedure). Clin Radiol 63:921–928
McEvoy SH, Lavelle LP, Hoare SM et al (2014) Pancreaticoduodenectomy: expected post-operative anatomy and complications. Br J Radiol 87:20140050
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Tonolini, M., Bracchi, E. Early postoperative imaging after non-bariatric gastric resection: a primer for radiologists. Insights Imaging 8, 393–404 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0559-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0559-0