Comparative Outcomes of Ileocolon Graft Versus Gastric Conduit Reconstruction in Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Survival, Quality of Life, and Perioperative Risks.

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy with ileocolon graft (ICG) reconstruction serves as the standard surgical approach for esophageal cancer when gastric conduit (GC) is unavailable, yet comparative outcome data between these techniques remain scarce. This study evaluates survival, quality of life (QoL), and surgical risks between these approaches.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-center cohort compared ICG (n = 95 after propensity score matching) and GC (n = 95) in patients with esophageal cancer. Operative outcomes, complications, survival, and QoL (assessed via EORTC QLQ-C30/OES18) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The 3-year overall survival [hazard ratio (HR):1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.96; p = 0.47] and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.85-1.95; p = 0.09) were comparable. ICG patients exhibited significantly fewer reflux symptoms (p < 0.001) and less nausea/vomiting (p = 0.017), with better QoL scores. However, ICG required longer operative times (398.2 vs. 259.3 min; p < 0.001), greater blood loss (178.9 vs. 149.5 mL; p = 0.038), and higher reoperation rates (12 vs. 2; p = 0.005). Postoperatively, ICG was associated with extended hospital stays (15.9 vs. 11.8 days; p < 0.001), increased graft necrosis (4 vs. 0; p = 0.043), and a trend toward thromboembolism (3 vs. 0; p = 0.081). The 30-day mortality (2 vs. 0; p = 0.115) and long-term complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ICG and GC offer equivalent long-term survival, but ICG reduces reflux and improves QoL despite higher perioperative complexity. ICG represents a viable alternative for esophageal reconstruction when symptom control and QoL are prioritized.