Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:06:36.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

140-year history of pharyngoesophageal reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2024

Oleksandr Butskiy*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Brent A Chang
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona
Donald W Anderson
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Norbert Banyi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Eitan Prisman
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
*
Corresponding author: Oleksandr Butskiy; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

For over a century, circumferential pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction posed significant surgical challenges. This review aims to provide a narrative history of pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction from early surgical innovations to the advent of modern free-flap procedures.

Methods

The review encompasses three segments: (1) local and/or locoregional flaps, (2) visceral transposition flaps, and (3) free-tissue transfer, focusing on the interplay between pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction and prevalent surgical trends.

Results

Before 1960, Mikulicz-Radecki's flaps and the Wookey technique prevailed for circumferential pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction. Gastric pull-up and colonic interposition were favoured visceral techniques in the 1960s–1990s. Concurrently, deltopectoral and pectoralis major flaps were the preferred cutaneous methods. Free flaps (radial forearm, anterolateral thigh) revolutionised reconstructions in the late 1980s, yet gastric pull-up and free jejunal transfer remain in selective use.

Conclusions

Numerous pharyngoesophageal junction reconstructive methods have been trialled in the last century. Despite significant advancements in free-flap reconstruction, some older methods are still in use for challenging clinical situations.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Introduction

Circumferential resection of the pharyngoesophageal junction is reserved for advanced malignancies of the hypopharynx, cervical oesophagus, larynx or thyroid, and occasionally for severe caustic injuries of the upper aerodigestive tract.Reference Chan and Wei1Reference Tong, Law, Kwong, Wei, Ng and Wong3 Reconstruction of the resulting defect (Figure 1) has remained a major surgical challenge for over a century.Reference Missotten4 Given the lack of high-quality evidence to support one pharyngoesophageal reconstruction technique over the other, a historical perspective of pharyngoesophageal reconstruction is essential to understand the modern techniques and the problems they were designed to address. The last review of the history of pharyngoesophageal reconstruction is 40 years old and predates the popularisation of microvascular reconstruction.Reference Missotten4 The purpose of the present review is to provide an updated historical perspective of circumferential pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 1. Historical overview of local and locoregional flap pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

The various reconstructive options trialled over the years are difficult to categorise. For the purposes of this review, the techniques are grouped into three categories: (1) local and locoregional cutaneous and myocutaneous flaps, (2) pedicled visceral flaps, and (3) free-tissue transfer.

Local and locoregional flaps (Figure 1)

The first experimental work on the resection of “the upper gullet” was performed in the surgical school of Theodor Billroth in Vienna in the late nineteenth century. In 1871, Professor Billroth resected the upper oesophagus in a series of dogs and closed the resulting defect by pulling the distal oesophagus up and creating a primary anastomosis.Reference Billroth5 Billroth's pupil, Vincenz Czerny, performed the first resection of a tumour posterior to the larynx in 1877. Czerny was unable to close the resulting defect, which soon proved impossible for anything other than small tumors.Reference Czerny6,Reference Chasseray, Kiroff, Buard and Launois7 Czerny's patient survived for one year.

Ten years following the first cervical oesophageal resection, another one of Billroth's pupils, Jan Mikulicz-Radecki, re-established alimentary continuity by surgically folding cervical skin flaps.Reference Mikulicz8 In the first decade of the twentieth century, Mikulicz's method was adopted and modified by a variety of European surgeons.Reference Bircher9Reference Trotter12 These modifications required three to four surgeries, which resulted in unacceptably high morbidity and mortality in the pre-antibiotic era.

The field of radiation oncology was advancing concurrently and only four years after the 1898 discovery of polonium and radium by Marie and Pierre Curie, pharyngeal carcinoma was successfully treated with radiation in Vienna.Reference Connell and Hellman13 More patients were being treated with radiation and the irradiated cervical skin flaps were less reliable for reconstruction. Radiation became the primary treatment and palliation of cancers at the pharyngoesophageal junction at the time.Reference Seidenberg, Rosenak, Hurwitt and Som14,Reference Jacobsson15

Surgical enthusiasm was renewed during World War II.16 In 1942, Harold Wookey of the University of Toronto developed a two stage cervical oesophageal reconstruction: in the first operation, a cervical pharyngotomy was created, and in the second operation, the pharyngotomy was closed by folding laterally based cutaneous flaps (Figure 2).Reference Wookey17 This technique was modified several times and it remained the standard of care until the 1960s, but still often used irradiated skin. The Wookey technique is used today in patients who have exhausted other reconstructive options.Reference Sundaram and Har-El18

Figure 2. Wookey technique for two stage closure of the pharyngoesophageal defect with cervical skin flaps.

An obvious donor site for the pharyngoesophageal reconstruction outside the irradiated field is the chest. Thoracic skin flaps used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction can be classified into random or axial flaps. Random flaps were used extensively for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction in the 1950s.Reference Caitlin19Reference Bricker and Burford21 Unlike random flaps, axial flaps rely on knowledge of the cutaneous blood supply, which was described in 1889 by Manchot.Reference Manchot22 The first axial flaps were demonstrated by Davis in 1919.Reference Manchot23 It was not until 1965 that Vahram Bakamjian introduced the first clinically useful axial flap: the deltopectoral flap (Figure 3).Reference Bakamjian24

Figure 3. Deltopectoral flap, stage 1.

The deltopectoral flap was a conceptual breakthrough in flap design, increasing the reliability of the donor skin as compared to random flaps. Bakamjian specifically designed the deltopectoral flap to address the problem of pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.Reference Bakamjian24 Unfortunately, like the Wookey flap, the deltopectoral flap required a two-stage reconstruction. In 1969, Harrison found that with multi-step pharyngoesophageal reconstruction methods, local recurrence was seen between stages in at least 50 per cent of his patients.Reference Harrison25

Prior to the 1970s, there were multiple attempts to solve the problem of multiple reconstructive stages with the use of laryngotracheal autografts,Reference Asherson26,Reference Som27 free-skin grafting over stents,Reference Rob and Bateman28 and the use of plastic tubes.Reference Montgomery29 One intriguing idea was the use of free, full-thickness tubular grafts of penile skin.Reference Kaplan and Markowicz30 These were complex procedures complicated by oral microbial flora contaminating the surgical fields, frequently resulting in wound breakdown, fistula formation or carotid blowout.Reference Missotten4

The conceptual breakthrough that allowed successful single-stage reconstruction of pharyngoesophageal defects with pedicled cutaneous flaps came in the late 1960s using the rediscovered myocutaneous flap principle. Remarkably, the myocutaneous flap principle was pioneered at the end of the nineteenth century by Iginio Tansini,Reference Maxwell31 an Italian contemporary of Professor Cherny. Because myocutaneous flaps do not require a separate skin pedicle for survival, the cutaneous portion of the myocutaneous flap can be tubed in a single operation (Figure 5).

The first myocutaneous flap adopted for head and neck reconstruction was the pectoralis major flap (Figure 4). Pioneered by an Australian thoracic surgeon for chest reconstruction in 1968,Reference Hueston and McConchte32 its utility for head and neck reconstruction was not recognised until 1979 by Ariyan.Reference Ariyan33 By the early 1980s, some considered the myocutaneous pectoralis flap to be the “ideal form of pharyngo-oesophageal reconstruction.”Reference Missotten4 It was later criticised for bulkiness and high incidence of fistula formation.Reference Carlson, Coleman and Jurkiewicz34,Reference Jurkiewicz35 A recent solution to minimise bulk is the partial pectoralis major flap tubing, incorporating prevertebral fascia into circumferential pharyngeal reconstruction.Reference Burke, Kaplan, Kaplowitz, Lotempio, Hicks and Rigual36

Figure 4. Pectoralis major flap used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

In the past 25 years, the use of local and locoregional cutaneous flaps for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction has been largely superseded by the use of free flaps. It is important to note a recent resurgence in regional pedicled cutaneous flaps for head and neck reconstruction due to their relative simplicity and ease of harvest. A reconstructive option that has received particular attention in recent literature is the supraclavicular flap.Reference Nagel and Hayden37,Reference Chiu, Liu, Baratelli, Lee, Chaffin and Friedlander38

Visceral transposition flaps (Figure 5)

A guiding principle of reconstructive surgery is to replace like with like.Reference Millard39 Thus, the extensive history of reconstructing the pharyngoesophageal junction with the digestive tract is expected.

Figure 5. Historical overview of visceral transposition flaps for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Until the development of free flaps in the 1980s, the only means of using viscera for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction was to transpose it while tethered by its vascular pedicle. In the early twentieth century, abdominal viscera were transposed into the neck by tunnelling either anterior or posterior to the sternum. This often resulted in limited deglutition, particularly when tunnelled anterior to the sternum, where patients would have to physically “milk” the bolus towards the stomach. A significant advance was contributed by Ivor Lewis in 1946 who developed the technique of right-sided thoracotomy for esophagectomy.Reference Lewis40 This technique facilitates transposing the viscera through the oesophageal bed to the neck following an oesophagectomy.Reference Eslick41 Three abdominal organs have been used in the pharyngoesophageal reconstruction: jejunum, colon and stomach.

Jejunum

The jejunum's isoperistaltic activity made it an attractive option for oesophageal reconstruction. The first reports of oesophageal reconstruction with a pedicled jejunum were published independently by RouxReference Roux42 and HerzenReference Herzen43 in 1907. These were multistage operations with two main challenges preventing its use in mainstream practice: (1) the vascular pedicles and vascular arcades were distant from the bowel edge, making survival of the transposed jejunum tenuous; and (2) redundant loops of bowel in the chest led to frequent obstruction.Reference Missotten4

Colon

The use of pedicled colon for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction proved to be more reliable than jejunum and is currently used in select circumstances. In 1911, Georg Kelling performed the first reconstruction of the oesophagus with the pedicled transverse colon.Reference Kelling44 In 1954, Goligher and Robin used antibiotics to conduct the first successful pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with the left colon supplied by the middle colic artery (Figure 6).Reference Goligher and Robin45 The advantages of this technique were the reliable blood supply, resistance of colonic mucosa to gastric secretions and the resistance to stenosis. However, the number of anastomotic connections and the extent of surgery increased morbidity. Hence, this procedure was used as a primary option for pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction only in a few centres briefly in the mid to late 1950s.

Figure 6. Left colon supplied by the middle colic artery and used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Stomach

Martin Kirschner was the first surgeon to replace the thoracic oesophagus with mobilised stomach. In 1920, Kirschner successfully treated a patient with a lye stricture by bypassing the stricture with the mobilised stomach tunnelled subcutaneously in front of the sternum.Reference Kirschner46 A few years later, Kirschner's operation was modified by tunnelling the stomach through the oesophageal bed.Reference Kummel47 This operation became known as the gastric pull-up, which remains the standard of care for thoracic oesophageal cancer (Figure 7).Reference Flanagan, Batz, Saboo, Nordeck, Abbara and Kernstine48

Figure 7. Gastric pull-up.

In the 1950s, surgeons feared that gastric pull-up for pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction would not allow tensionless anastomosis.Reference Goligher and Robin45 To overcome this potential problem some surgeons advocated for the reversed gastric tube,Reference Heimlich49 which had been investigated in dogs by Beck and Jianu at the turn of the twentieth century.Reference Beck and Carrell50,Reference Jianu51 Fifty years after the original experiments, Henry Heimlich was the first to apply the reversed gastric tube for pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction, but it subsequently was seldom used due to high morbidity (Figure 8).Reference Missotten4,Reference Heimlich49

Figure 8. Reversed gastric tube used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

GB Ong and TC Lee from Hong Kong challenged the notion that gastric pull-up would not reach the pharynx and performed it in 1959 following pharyngo-laryngo-oesophagectomy for three patients, demonstrating adequate length to reach the pharynx.Reference Ong and Lee52 They reconstructed the pharyngoesophageal junction defect in one operation and returned their patients to a normal diet as early as 10 days after surgery.Reference Ong and Lee52 No other operation at that time was capable of returning patients to eating as quickly.Reference Le Quesne and Ranger53

The success of GB Ong and TC Lee and the absence of alternative reconstructive methods explained the rapid rise in popularity of the gastric pull-up for pharyngo-oesophageal reconstruction in the 1960s. Surprisingly, the gastric pull-up has undergone minimal modification since. In the mid 1960s, the transhiatal oesophagectomy replaced routine thoracotomy for oesophagectomy.Reference Akiyama, Hiyama and Miyazono54 More recently, several authors have tried thoracoscopic oesophagectomyReference Tong, Law, Kwong, Wei, Ng and Wong3, Reference Watanabe, Baba, Yoshida, Ishimoto, Sakaguchi and Kawasuji55, Reference Wei, Lam, Yuen and Wong56 and laparoscopic approaches for stomach mobilisation.Reference Camaioni, Huscher, Damiani, Viti and Simone57Reference Wong, Chan, Lee, To, Ng and Chung60. It is unclear if these methods result in improved patient outcomes.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, alternatives to the gastric pull-up were developed and the enthusiasm for gastric pull-up waned due to reports of high morbidity and mortality. Some reports quoted mortality rates of close to 50 per cent.Reference Stell61,Reference Jones, Farrington and Weighill62 In 1986, writing about the gastric pull-up, Harrison stated that “with many other alternatives there could be no justification for carrying out what appears to be, in some reports, surgical euthanasia.”Reference Harrison and Thompson63

A more recent review showed gastric pull-up post-operative mortality has decreased and is approaching that of other pharyngoesophageal reconstruction techniques in high volume centres.Reference Butskiy, Rahmanian, White, Durham, Anderson and Prisman64 Gastric pull-up continues to be used, mostly in cases where the surgical defects extend below the thoracic inlet. Free-flap reconstruction, which was developed and popularised in the late 1980s and early 1990s, has now replaced both the gastric pull-up and the pedicled myocutaneous flaps as the method of choice for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Free-tissue transfer (Figure 9)

Development of free-tissue transfer was in part spurred by the challenges posed by pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Prior to the use of myocutaneous flaps, no method offered a reliable tubed cutaneous conduit in one operation. A potential solution was to auto-transplant free, non-vascularised abdominal viscera, such as jejunum, to the neck. This procedure was experimentally investigated in a series of mongrel dogs by Bernard Seidenberg from New York in the late 1950s.Reference Seidenberg, Rosenak, Hurwitt and Som14 Steinberg's group also performed the first clinical free-jejunal reconstruction of the hypopharynx in 1957.Reference Seidenberg, Rosenak, Hurwitt and Som14 This was soon followed by free transfer of the gastric antrum in 1961,Reference Hiebert and Cummings65 and of the sigmoid colon in 1964.Reference Nakayama, Yamamoto, Tamiya, Makino, Odaka and Ohwada66 Out of the visceral free flaps, only the free-jejunum flap continues to be used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Free-jejunal reconstruction provides relatively low anastomotic leak rate, with high volume centres reporting leak rates as low as 5.2 per cent,Reference Fujiki, Miyamoto, Hayashi and Sakuraba67 and allows up to 90 per cent of patients to be maintained on an oral diet.Reference Nagel and Hayden37 The major drawbacks of the jejunal free flap are the “wet voice” from mucous secretions by the flap and the morbidity of the donor site.Reference Nagel and Hayden37

  • From the late nineteenth century to the 1960s, pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction relied on local skin flaps (Mikulicz-Radecki's and Wookey's techniques), requiring multiple surgeries

  • In the 1950s, colonic interposition and gastric pull-up were introduced; improvements over the past two decades have made gastric pull-up a continued choice for tumours extending into the thoracic oesophagus

  • Ionising radiation was the primary treatment for pharyngoesophageal junction malignancies until the 1960s, so local skin flaps were complicated by the use of radiated tissues

  • In 1965, the deltopectoral flap advanced reconstruction by enabling a two-stage procedure with better blood supply, using tissue not affected by radiation

  • During the 1980s, the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap enabled single-stage reconstruction

  • Free-tissue transfers, particularly tubed radial forearm and anterolateral thigh flaps, became preferable for pharyngoesophageal junction repair in the 1980s and the free jejunal flap emerged as an alternative to colonic interposition and gastric pull-up

  • Despite advancements in free flap reconstruction, older methods are still in use for challenging clinical situations.

Figure 9. Overview of free-tissue transfer history and its application for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

The successes with microsurgical experiments and with free visceral transfers in the 1960s laid the foundation for the development of composite cutaneous free flaps. The first successful composite free-flap transfer was performed in a canine model by Krizek et al. in 1965.Reference Krizek, Tani, Desprez and Kiehn68 There is some controversy over who performed the first successful human microvascular composite tissue auto transplantation,Reference Rickard and Hudson69 but most credit Harii from Japan in 1972.Reference Harii, Omori and Omori70 Over the next decade, a number of free-tissue transfer options were developed.Reference Tamai71 It was not until the mid to late 1980s that free-tissue transfer was widely practiced and once its reliability was shown,Reference Nahabedian, Singh, Deune, Silverman and Tufaro72 it became the standard of care for head and neck oncologic surgical defects.

The first reported free-tissue pharyngoesophageal reconstruction was by Hayden et al. in 1984, using the lateral thigh fasciocutaneous flap.Reference Hayden and Deschler73 The major advantages of free-tissue transfer for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction are one-stage reconstruction, relatively low morbidity to the donor site, and avoidance of complications associated with entering the abdominal cavity or mediastinum. However, the cutaneous tubes are known to be more prone to leaks and strictures than the visceral options.Reference Cho, Kim, Lee, Byun, Park and Baik74Reference Scharpf and Esclamado76 In the last 20 years, the radial forearm free flap and anterolateral thigh flap have been used most frequently for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.Reference Nagel and Hayden37

The radial forearm free flap flap was developed and popularised in China in the early 1980s.Reference Song, Gao, Song, Yu and Song77 The first reported case of pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with the radial forearm free flap was by Harii et al. in 1985.Reference Harii, Ebihara, Ono, Saito, Terui and Takato78 Harii's team popularised the trapezoid design of the flap folded on itself, with the proximal end wider than the distal end, creating a funnelled tube with a longitudinal suture line. Early experiences with this flap showed higher frequency of salivary leaks and fistulas compared to the jejunal free flap, which was popular at the time.Reference Cho, Kim, Lee, Byun, Park and Baik74Reference Scharpf and Esclamado76 Several modifications to reduce the frequency of anastomotic leaks included use of the Montgomery salivary bypass stentReference Varvares, Cheney, Gliklich, Boyd, Goldsmith and Lazor79 and de-epithelialisation of the vertical suture line.Reference Chen, Chen, Vranckx and Schneeberger80

The anterolateral thigh flap is another fasciocutaneous flap that is now routinely used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. The anterolateral thigh flap, described by Song et al. in 1984,Reference Song, Chen and Song81 has gained significant popularity for head and neck reconstruction (Figure 10).Reference Nagel and Hayden37 One of the often quoted advantages of the anterolateral thigh flap over the radial forearm free flap is that the fascial layer of the anterolateral thigh flap can wrap around the suture line and protect it from salivary leaks.Reference Nagel and Hayden37 In recent years, surgical centres worldwide have been trending towards favouring the anterolateral thigh flap over other forms of cutaneous free flap pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.Reference Nagel and Hayden37 While survival of hypopharyngeal and cervical carcinomas have improved dramatically since Billroth's first experimental surgeries in the late nineteenth century, it is still estimated to be only between 15 and 56 per centReference Schizas, Theochari, Ziogas, Economopoulos and Mylonas82.

Figure 10. Anterolateral thigh free flap folded into a cone and used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Summary

This historical review (Figure 11) provides insights into the various reconstructive techniques and their relative applications and challenges in restoring speech and swallow post-resection. From the late nineteenth century to the 1960s, pharyngoesophageal junction reconstruction relied on local skin flaps, such as Mikulicz-Radecki's and Wookey's techniques, which required multiple surgeries. Because ionising radiation was the primary treatment for pharyngoesophageal junction malignancies until the 1960s, local skin flaps were complicated by the use of radiated tissues. In the 1950s, colonic interposition and gastric pull-up were introduced. Despite early high rates of complication, improvements over the past two decades have made gastric pull-up a continued choice for tumours extending into the thoracic oesophagus. In 1965, the deltopectoral flap advanced reconstruction by enabling a two-stage procedure with better blood supply, using tissue not affected by radiation. During the 1980s, the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap enabled single-stage reconstruction. Free-tissue transfers, particularly tubed radial forearm and anterolateral thigh flaps, became preferable for pharyngoesophageal junction repair in the 1980s and the free jejunal flap emerged as an alternative to colonic interposition and gastric pull-up. Despite advancements in free-flap reconstruction, older methods are still in use for challenging clinical situations.

Figure 11. Summary of the most popular reconstructive options over the last century. Approximate periods of technological advance are separated by dashed vertical lines.

Financial disclosure

No funding was received for this article and the authors do not have commercial association to declare.

Competing interests

The authors report no conflicts of interest with regards to the contents of this manuscript.

Footnotes

Oleksandr Butskiy takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Chan, JYW, Wei, WI. Current management strategy of hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 2013;40:26Google Scholar
Murray, DJ, Novak, CB, Neligan, PC. Fasciocutaneous free flaps in pharyngolaryngo-oesophageal reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008;61:1148–56Google Scholar
Tong, DKH, Law, S, Kwong, DLW, Wei, WI, Ng, RWM, Wong, KH. Current management of cervical esophageal cancer. World J Surg 2011;35:600–7Google Scholar
Missotten, FE. Historical review of pharyngo-oesophageal reconstruction after resection for carcinoma of pharynx and cervical oesophagus. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1983;8:345–62Google Scholar
Billroth, T. Ueber die resection des oesophagus. Langenbeck's Arch Klin Chir 1871;13:6569Google Scholar
Czerny, V. Neue operationen. Zentralbl Chir 1877;4:433–4Google Scholar
Chasseray, VM, Kiroff, GK, Buard, JL, Launois, B. Cervical or thoracic anastomosis for esophagectomy for carcinoma. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1989;169:5562Google Scholar
Mikulicz, J. Ein Fall von Resection des carcinomatosen oesophagus mit plastischem Ersatz des exidirten Stuckes. Prag Med Wochenschr 1886;11:93–5Google Scholar
Bircher, E. Ein beitrag zur plastischen bildung eines neuen Oesophagus. Zentralbl Chir 1907;34:1479–82Google Scholar
Von Hacker, V. Resection und Plastik am Halsabschnitt der Speiserohre, insbesondere beim Carcinom. Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 1908;359425Google Scholar
Lane, WA. Excision of a cancerous segment of the oesophagus: restoration of the oesophagus by means of skin flap. Br Med J 1911;1:1617Google Scholar
Trotter, W. A method of lateral pharyngotomy for the exposure of large growths of the epilaryngeal region. Proc R Soc Med 1920;13:196–8Google Scholar
Connell, PP, Hellman, S. Advances in radiotherapy and implications for the next century: a historical perspective. Cancer Res 2009;69:383–92Google Scholar
Seidenberg, B, Rosenak, SS, Hurwitt, ES, Som, ML. Immediate reconstruction of the cervical esophagus by a revascularized isolated jejunal segment. Ann Surg 1959;149:162–71Google Scholar
Jacobsson, F. Carcinoma of the hypopharynx; a clinical study of 322 cases treated at Radiumhemmet, from 1939 to 1947. Acta Radiol 1951;35:121Google Scholar
Wookey, H. The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the hypopharynx and the oesophagus. Br J Surg 1948;35:249–66Google Scholar
Sundaram, K, Har-El, G. The Wookey flap revisited. Head Neck 2002;24:395400Google Scholar
Caitlin, D. Use of the tubed pedicle transplant in reconstruction of surgical defects in the head and neck. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946) 1950;6:207–16Google Scholar
Watson, WL, Converse, JM. Reconstruction of the cervical esophagus. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946) 1953;11:183–96Google Scholar
Bricker, EM, Burford, TH. Experiences with tubed pedicle grafts in esophageal reconstruction following resection for carcinoma. Ann Surg 1957;145:979–92Google Scholar
Manchot, C. Die Hauptarterien des menschlichen Koerpers. Leipzig: FCW Vogel, 1889Google Scholar
Manchot, C. The Cutaneous Arteries of the Human Body. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media, 1983Google Scholar
Bakamjian, VY. A two-stage method for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with a primary pectoral skin flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1965;36:173–84Google Scholar
Harrison, DF. Surgical management of cancer of the hypopharynx and cervical oesophagus. Br J Surg 1969;56:95103Google Scholar
Asherson, N. Pharyngectomy for post-cricoid carcinoma: one stage operation with reconstruction of the pharynx using the larynx as an auto graft. J Laryngol Otol 1954;68:550–9Google Scholar
Som, ML. Laryngoesophagectomy; primary closure with laryngotracheal autograft. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 1956;63:474–80Google Scholar
Rob, CG, Bateman, GH. Reconstruction of the trachea and cervical oesophagus; preliminary report. Br J Surg 1949;37:202–5Google Scholar
Montgomery, W. Reconstruction of the cervical esophagus. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1963;77:5566Google Scholar
Kaplan, I, Markowicz, H. One-stage primary reconstruction of the cervical œsophagus by means of a free tubular graft of penile skin. Br J Plast Surg 1964;17:314–19Google Scholar
Maxwell, GP. Iginio Tansini and the origin of the latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1980;65:686–92Google Scholar
Hueston, JT, McConchte, IH. A compound pectoral flap. Aust N Z J Surg 1968;38:61–3Google Scholar
Ariyan, S. The pectoralis major myocutaneous flap. A versatile flap for reconstruction in the head and neck. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979;63:7381Google Scholar
Carlson, GW, Coleman, JJ 3rd, Jurkiewicz, MJ. Reconstruction of the hypopharynx and cervical esophagus. Curr Probl Surg 1993;30:427–72Google Scholar
Jurkiewicz, MJ. Reconstructive surgery of the cervical esophagus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1984;88:893–7Google Scholar
Burke, MS, Kaplan, SE, Kaplowitz, LJ, Lotempio, MM, Hicks, WL Jr., Rigual, NR et al. Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of circumferential pharyngeal defects. Ann Plast Surg 2013;71:649–51Google Scholar
Nagel, TH, Hayden, RE. Advantages and limitations of free and pedicled flaps in reconstruction of pharyngoesophageal defects. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;22:407–13Google Scholar
Chiu, ES, Liu, PH, Baratelli, R, Lee, MY, Chaffin, AE, Friedlander, PL. Circumferential pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with a supraclavicular artery island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:161–6Google Scholar
Millard, DR Jr. Principlization of Plastic Surgery, 1st edn. Boston: Little, Brown & Co 1986Google Scholar
Lewis, I. The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus; with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third. Br J Surg 1946;34:1831Google Scholar
Eslick, GD. Esophageal cancer: a historical perspective. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2009;38:115Google Scholar
Roux, C. Esophagojejunogastrostomy: a new operation for intractable obstruction of the oesophagus. Semin Med 1907;27:3440Google Scholar
Herzen, P. Eine modifikation der Roux'schen Ösophagojejunogastrostomie. Zentralbl Chir 1908;35:219–22Google Scholar
Kelling, G. Oesophagoplastik mit hilfe des querkolon. Zentralbl Chir 1911;38:1209–12Google Scholar
Goligher, JC, Robin, IG. Use of left colon for reconstruction of pharynx and oesophagus after pharyngectomy. Br J Surg 1954;42:283–90Google Scholar
Kirschner, M. Ein neues verfahren der oesophagoplastik. Arch Klin Chir 1920;114:606–63Google Scholar
Kummel, H. Ueber intrathorakale oesophagus plastik. Beitr Klin Chir 1922;126:264Google Scholar
Flanagan, JC, Batz, R, Saboo, SS, Nordeck, SM, Abbara, S, Kernstine, K et al. Esophagectomy and gastric pull-through procedures: surgical techniques, imaging features, and potential complications. Radiographics 2016;36:107–21Google Scholar
Heimlich, H. Postcricoid carcinoma and obstructing lesions of the thoracic esophagus: A new operation for replacement of the esophagus. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 1959;69:570–6Google Scholar
Beck, C, Carrell, A. Demonstration of specimens illustrating a method of formation of a prethoracic esophagus. Ill Med J 1905;7:463Google Scholar
Jianu, A. Gastrostomie und ösophagoplastik. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1912;118:383–90Google Scholar
Ong, GB, Lee, TC. Pharyngogastric anastomosis after oesophago-pharyngectomy for carcinoma of the hypopharynx and cervical oesophagus. Br J Surg 1960;48:193200Google Scholar
Le Quesne, LP, Ranger, D. Pharyngolaryngectomy, with immediate pharyngogastric anastomosis. Br J Surg 1966;53:105–9Google Scholar
Akiyama, H, Hiyama, M, Miyazono, H. Total esophageal reconstruction after extraction of the esophagus. Ann Surg 1975;182:547–52Google Scholar
Watanabe, M, Baba, Y, Yoshida, N, Ishimoto, T, Sakaguchi, H, Kawasuji, M et al. Modified gastric pull-up reconstructions following pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2014;27:255–61Google Scholar
Wei, WI, Lam, LK, Yuen, PW, Wong, J. Current status of pharyngolaryngo-esophagectomy and pharyngogastric anastomosis. Head Neck 1998;20:240–4Google Scholar
Camaioni, A, Huscher, C, Damiani, V, Viti, C, Simone, M. Pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy with laparoscopic gastric pull-up: our experience. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:1311–410Google Scholar
Denewer, A, Khater, A, Hafez, MT, Hussein, O, Roshdy, S, Shahatto, F et al. Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction after resection of hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a new algorithm after analysis of 142 cases. World J Surg Oncol 2014;12:182Google Scholar
Rossi, M, Santi, S, Barreca, M, Anselmino, M, Solito, B. Minimally invasive pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy: a salvage procedure for recurrent postcricoid esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2005;18:304–10Google Scholar
Wong, SKH, Chan, ACW, Lee, DWH, To, EWH, Ng, EKW, Chung, SCS. Minimal invasive approach of gastric and esophageal mobilization in total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy: total laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic technique. Surg Endosc 2003;17:798802Google Scholar
Stell, PM. Cancer of the hypopharynx. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1973;18:2030Google Scholar
Jones, PH, Farrington, WT, Weighill, JS. Surgical salvage in postcricoid cancer. J Laryngol Otol 1986;100:8595Google Scholar
Harrison, DF, Thompson, AE. Pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy with pharyngogastric anastomosis for cancer of the hypopharynx: review of 101 operations. Head Neck Surg 1986;8:418–28Google Scholar
Butskiy, O, Rahmanian, R, White, RA, Durham, S, Anderson, DW, Prisman, E. Revisiting the gastric pull-up for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality and morbidity. J Surg Oncol 2016;114:907–14Google Scholar
Hiebert, CA, Cummings, GO Jr. Successful replacement of the cervical esophagus by transplantation and revascularization of a free graft of gastric antrum. Ann Surg 1961;154:103–6Google Scholar
Nakayama, K, Yamamoto, K, Tamiya, T, Makino, H, Odaka, M, Ohwada, M et al. Experience with free autografts of the bowel with a new venous anastomosis apparatus. Surgery 1964;55:796802Google Scholar
Fujiki, M, Miyamoto, S, Hayashi, R, Sakuraba, M. Evaluation of routine contrast swallow following total pharyngolaryngectomy and free jejunal transfer. Laryngoscope 2015;125:2280–3Google Scholar
Krizek, TJ, Tani, T, Desprez, JD, Kiehn, CL. Experimental transplantation of composite grafts by microsurgical vascular anastomoses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1965;36:538–46Google Scholar
Rickard, RF, Hudson, DA. A history of vascular and microvascular surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2014;73:465–72Google Scholar
Harii, K, Omori, K, Omori, S. Successful clinical transfer of ten free flaps by microvascular anastomoses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1974;53:259–70Google Scholar
Tamai, S. History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124(suppl 6):e282–94Google Scholar
Nahabedian, MY, Singh, N, Deune, EG, Silverman, R, Tufaro, AP. Recipient vessel analysis for microvascular reconstruction of the head and neck. Ann Plast Surg 2004;52:148–55; discussion 156–7Google Scholar
Hayden, RE, Deschler, DG. Lateral thigh free flap for head and neck reconstruction. Laryngoscope 1999;109:1490–4Google Scholar
Cho, BC, Kim, M, Lee, JH, Byun, JS, Park, JS, Baik, BS. Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with a tubed free radial forearm flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 1998;14:535–40Google Scholar
Anthony, JP, Singer, MI, Deschler, DG, Dougherty, ET, Reed, CG, Kaplan, MJ. Long-term functional results after pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with the radial forearm free flap. Am J Surg 1994;168:441–5Google Scholar
Scharpf, J, Esclamado, RM. Reconstruction with radial forearm flaps after ablative surgery for hypopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 2003;25:261–6Google Scholar
Song, R, Gao, Y, Song, Y, Yu, Y, Song, Y. The forearm flap. Clin Plast Surg 1982;9:21–6Google Scholar
Harii, K, Ebihara, S, Ono, I, Saito, H, Terui, S, Takato, T. Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction using a fabricated forearm free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;75:463–76Google Scholar
Varvares, MA, Cheney, ML, Gliklich, RE, Boyd, JM, Goldsmith, T, Lazor, J et al. Use of the radial forearm fasciocutaneous free flap and Montgomery salivary bypass tube for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Head Neck 2000;22:463–8Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Chen, H, Vranckx, JJ, Schneeberger, AG. Edge deepithelialization: a method to prevent leakage when tubed free skin flap is used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Surgery 2001;130:97103Google Scholar
Song, YG, Chen, GZ, Song, YL. The free thigh flap: a new free flap concept based on the septocutaneous artery. Br J Plast Surg 1984;37:149–59Google Scholar
Schizas, D, Theochari, NA, Ziogas, IA, Economopoulos, KP, Mylonas, KS. Carcinomas of the hypopharynx and cervical esophagus: a systematic review and quality of evidence assessment. J BUON 2021;26:3950Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Historical overview of local and locoregional flap pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Wookey technique for two stage closure of the pharyngoesophageal defect with cervical skin flaps.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Deltopectoral flap, stage 1.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Pectoralis major flap used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Historical overview of visceral transposition flaps for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Left colon supplied by the middle colic artery and used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Gastric pull-up.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Reversed gastric tube used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Overview of free-tissue transfer history and its application for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Anterolateral thigh free flap folded into a cone and used for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Summary of the most popular reconstructive options over the last century. Approximate periods of technological advance are separated by dashed vertical lines.