Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A flow visualization model of duodenogastric reflux after esophagectomy with gastric interposition

  • Chul-Hyun Park1,
  • Jae-Ik Lee1Email author,
  • Jaeyong Sung2,
  • Sunghoon Choi2 and
  • Kwang-Pil Ko3
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery20138:192

https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-8-192

Received: 12 April 2013

Accepted: 24 September 2013

Published: 25 September 2013

Abstract

Background

Our goal was to verify surgical factors that affect duodenogastric reflux (DGR) after esophagectomy through the use of a flow visualization model that would mimic an intrathoracic gastric tube.

Methods

Transparent gastric tube models for different routes (retrosternal space [RS] and posterior mediastinum [PM]) were fabricated. Various distal pressures were applied to the experimental model filled with water, and the flow was recorded with a high-speed camera. The volume and maximum height of the refluxate through the pylori of two different sizes (7.5 mm, 15 mm) in two different postures (upright, semi-Fowler) was measured by analyzing the video clips.

Results

For the large pylorus setting, when the pressures of 20, 30, and 40 mmHg were applied in the upright position, the volumes of the refluxate in the RS/PM tubes were 87.7 ± 1.1/96.4 ± 1.7 mL, 150.8 ± 1.1/158.0 ± 3.2 mL, and 156.8 ± 3.3/198.0 ± 4.7 mL (p < 0.05), and the maximum heights were 101.6 ± 4.8/113.4 ± 2.9 mm, 151.4 ± 2.2/165.4 ± 1.5 mm, and 166.1 ± 1.7/193.7 ± 6.6 mm (p < 0.05). The data for the small pylorus setting or in the semi-Fowler position showed similar tendencies. For any given route, posture or pressure setting, DGR in the large pylorus model was definitively higher than that for small one.

Conclusions

This fluid mechanics study demonstrates posterior mediastinal gastric interposition or pyloric drainage procedure, or both, is associated with high reflux of duodenal contents.

Keywords

Esophageal surgeryIn vitro studiesQuality of life

Background

Duodenogastric reflux (DGR) is a common pathophysiological sequela of esophagectomy with gastric interposition; it has been documented in 60 ~ 80% of patients[1]. The reflux symptoms adversely affect the quality of life in these patients[15]. Furthermore, there is evidence that the duodenal contents are noxious and may, in the long term, cause mucosal changes both to the gastric conduit and the esophageal remnant[1]. A truncal vagotomy that necessarily accompanies the procedure is considered the main cause of DGR. It impairs the physiological balance between propulsive activity of the antrum and pyloroduodenal resistance to gastric in and outflows of biliopancreatic secretion[6].

To eliminate this complication, some authors have advocated the omission of a pyloric drainage procedure[7], and the use of an extra-anatomical space as a route of esophageal reconstruction rather than using the posterior mediastinum[3, 8]. Controversy still exists about the omission of a pyloric drainage procedure and the use of an extra-anatomical route because the evidence from the literature is conflicting[4, 5, 912]. A reason for these conflicting results is that the clinical data from human subjects is not easily reproducible due to many other factors that affect DGR and cannot be completely controlled in clinical settings.

The aim of this study was to verify the role of the route of reconstruction and a pyloric drainage procedure on postoperative DGR by using a flow visualization model of the intrathoracic stomach, which we have previously described[13].

Methods

For the design of an intrathoracic gastric tube model, we reviewed the postoperative chest CT images of 10 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy with gastric interposition (5 in the retrosternal space (RS) and 5 in the posterior mediastinum (PM)) at Gachon University Gil Hospital. This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gachon University Gil Hospital.

Data collection from CT images

For each patient, all of the CT slices from the esophago-gastric anastomotic site to the level of the pylorus were taken by changing the vertical position z, and the data about the centroids (x, y) in the cross sections of the gastric tube were obtained. Then, the centroids and heights were averaged for the 5 patients in each group (Figure 1). Finally, the three-dimensional courses of the gastric tube (in RS and PM) were averaged and used for reconstructions.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Averaging the course of the gastric tube. Bold lines represent the average of centroids (x, y) of 5 gastric tubes according to the vertical position (z) in each route. A, x in the retrosternal route. B, y in the retrosternal route. C, Retrosternal gastric tube model. D, x in the posterior mediastinal route. E, y in the posterior mediastinal route. F, Posterior mediastinal gastric tube model.

Model fabrication and setting

The experimental models were made in the same manner as previously described by the authors[13]. For simple comparison, the passages were modeled as circular tubes with an inner diameter of 40 mm (to a thickness of 5 mm), using a rapid prototyping technique. They were connected to the pylorus models with two different diameters of pyloric opening (7.5 mm or 15 mm) (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the experimental setup for measuring DGR. A frame supporting the gastric tube model was designed to be tilted by a hinge. An air compressor supplied distal pressure, and two solenoid valves (supply and exhaust) were used to control the width of a pressure pulse. When the supply valve was opened and the exhaust valve was closed simultaneously by a relay switch, compressed air was applied to the model filled with water up to the level of pyloric opening and caused DGR. At the same time, the flow inside the model was recorded with a high speed camera (SVSi, Southern Vision Systems, Alabama, USA) at a rate of 30 frames/sec. After a given time interval, the supply valve was closed and the exhaust valve was opened simultaneously to drain the refluxate.
Figure 2
Figure 2

Experimental setup for measuring reflux.

Determination of distal pressure causing DGR

To represent variable pressure gradients causing DGR across the pylorus, three different distal pressures of 20, 30 and 40 mmHg (the width of a pressure pulse = 1 second) were determined arbitrarily.

Measurement of DGR

After recording the internal flow, the fluid was drained through the exhaust valve to measure the volume. To evaluate the accessibility of the refluxate to the esophagus, the maximum height of the refluaxate (perpendicular distance from the plane of the pyloric opening) was measured by analyzing video clips using a computer-assisted video frame analysis system (MemView 2.1.9, Southern Vision Systems, Alabama, USA) (Figure 3). Accordingly, DGR was measured in 24 cases of 2 routes, 2 pylori, 3 pressure settings and 2 postures. For each case, 10 experiments were conducted to check the reproducibility.
Figure 3
Figure 3

Gastric tube model in the semi-Fowler position. A, Retrosternal route. B, Posterior mediastinal route. h, Maximum height of refluxate; A, Anterior; Ca, Caudal; Cr, Cranial; P, Posterior.

Statistics

All the data is presented as the mean ± standard deviation. The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the volume and height of the refluxate between two groups. All analyses were performed using SPSS V12.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL) and yielded two-sided p values. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

The mean volumes and heights of refluxate when the distal pressures of 20, 30, and 40 mmHg were applied for one second to the model in the upright and semi-Fowler positions are shown in Tables 1 and2.
Table 1

Mean volume and height of refluxate according to the size of the pylorus

Route

Posture

Pressure (mmHg)

Volume (mL)

Height (mm)

   

Small pylorus

Large pylorus

p value

Small pylorus

Large pylorus

p value

RS

Upright

20

50.8 ± 4.0

87.8 ± 1.1

.001

72.6 ± 3.6

101.6 ± 4.8

.001

30

58.4 ± 1.5

150.8 ± 1.1

.008

87.3 ± 3.6

151.4 ± 2.2

.008

40

69.8 ± 2.6

156.8 ± 3.3

.008

111.0 ± 5.6

166.1 ± 1.7

.008

Semi-Fowler

20

53.4 ± 4.0

114.7 ± 3.1

<.001

86.9 ± 11.6

137.5 ± 3.9

<.001

30

58.0 ± 0.7

158.8 ± 0.8

.008

132.7 ± 3.2

181.6 ± 1.0

.008

40

72.6 ± 0.9

200.2 ± 2.7

.008

135.8 ± 5.5

221.0 ± 3.4

.008

PM

Upright

20

56.4 ± 1.7

96.4 ± 1.7

.001

72.5 ± 5.6

113.4 ± 2.9

.001

30

61.2 ± 2.2

158.0 ± 3.2

.008

98.3 ± 3.84

165.4 ± 1.5

.008

40

75.6 ± 1.5

198.0 ± 4.7

.008

118.6 ± 5.0

193.7 ± 6.6

.008

Semi-Fowler

20

59.0 ± 2.0

144.5 ± 2.8

<.001

164.0 ± 8.0

162.5 ± 5.0

.529

30

60.6 ± 0.9

176.0 ± 1.8

.004

191.3 ± 9.3

198.8 ± 6.4

.310

  

40

73.4 ± 1.3

227.7 ± 4.3

.004

217.8 ± 7.4

233.4 ± 4.2

.008

The width of a pressure pulse was 1 second.

PM posterior mediastinum, RS retrosternal space.

Table 2

Mean volume and height of refluxate according to the route of the gastric tube

Pylorus

Posture

Pressure (mmHg)

Volume (mL)

Height (mm)

   

RS

PM

p value

RS

PM

p value

Small

Upright

20

50.8 ± 4.0

56.4 ± 1.7

.002

72.6 ± 3.6

72.5 ± 5.6

.684

30

58.4 ± 1.5

61.2 ± 2.2

.034

87.3 ± 3.6

98.3 ± 3.8

.016

40

69.8 ± 2.6

75.6 ± 1.5

.008

111.0 ± 5.6

118.6 ± 5.0

.008

Semi-Fowler

20

53.4 ± 4.0

59.0 ± 2.0

.004

86.9 ± 11.6

164.0 ± 8.0

<.001

30

58.0 ± 0.7

60.6 ± 0.9

.040

132.7 ± 3.2

191.5 ± 9.3

.008

40

72.6 ± 0.9

73.4 ± 1.3

.421

135.8 ± 5.5

217.8 ± 7.4

.008

Large

Upright

20

87.7 ± 1.1

96.4 ± 1.7

.008

101.6 ± 4.8

113.4 ± 2.9

.008

30

150.8 ± 1.1

158.0 ± 3.2

.008

151.4 ± 2.2

165.4 ± 1.5

.008

40

156.8 ± 3.3

198.0 ± 4.7

.008

166.1 ± 1.7

193.7 ± 6.6

.008

Semi-Fowler

20

114.7 ± 3.1

144.5 ± 2.8

<.001

137.5 ± 3.9

162.5 ± 5.0

<.001

30

158.8 ± 0.8

175.6 ± 1.7

.004

181.6 ± 1.0

198.8 ± 6.4

.008

  

40

200.2 ± 2.7

227.6 ± 4.8

.004

221.0 ± 3.4

233.4 ± 4.2

.008

The width of a pressure pulse was 1 second.

PM posterior mediastinum, RS retrosternal space.

DGR according to the size of the pylorus (pyloric drainage procedure)

For any given route, posture or pressure setting, the mean volumes of refluxate in the large pylorus model were always significantly larger than those of the small one (p < 0.05 for all). The data reflecting the mean heights showed similar tendencies as those of the mean volumes, with the exception of two cases (Table 1).

DGR according to the route of the gastric tube

For the large pylorus setting, the mean volumes and heights of refluxate in the PM model were always significantly larger than those of the RS model (p < 0.05 for all). The data from using the small pylorus setting showed similar tendencies as those for the large one, with exception of two cases (Table 2).

Discussion

The controversies about the omission of a pyloric drainage procedure and the use of an extra-anatomical route for minimizing DGR are caused by the limitations of the methodology used in most clinical studies. Most clinical studies have evaluated DGR using various indirect techniques, such as quantification of isotopic markers (Tc99-HIDA) in the gastric or esophageal aspirate[14], 24-hour gastric pH monitoring with the existence of alkaline reflux[15], or using a questionnaire for the reflux episodes[7], etc. All have some potential limitations for clearly verifying the influence of the route of reconstruction or of a pyloric drainage procedure. Apart from the limitations of each method itself, many other conditions that affect DGR, such as the variable intra-abdominal pressure, intestinal motility, posture and the physical activity of the patients during the study period may interfere with the results of studies.

It is for this reason that we designed the present study. Our goals were to evaluate the amount of refluxate and the esophagus’ exposure to refluxate purely according to the surgical factors. Additionally, we thought excluding or controlling the variables which are highly variable in a real clinical situation was essential in the design of a testable model. Therefore, we adopted the ‘flow visualization model’; a gastric tube where the internal flow can be easily accessed and directly observed. To simplify the comparison for this study’s purpose, we made the tubes cylindrical with circular cross sections of the same diameter. The diameter of the pyloric opening after drainage procedure was determined arbitrarily, doubling that of the original pyloric opening[13]. Because any reference values of pressure gradient causing DGR across the denervated pyloric sphincter could not be found in the literature, they were determined according to duodenal manometric data in an upper gastrointestinal motility study of healthy volunteers[16]. In that study, the amplitude of contractions in the duodenum was in the range of about 22 to 27 mmHg during fasting and after the meal. In addition, because it has been established that especially after abdominal surgery intra-abdominal pressure can be elevated (5 ~ 15 cmH2O) promoting DGR[17], the pressure gradient settings were set as 20, 30, and 40 mmHg in this study. The width of a pressure pulse was also determined arbitrarily because there were no reference values available in the literature.

In the literature, a pyloric drainage procedure is known to have an unclear effect on reflux[35, 9, 10]. In the present study, the degree of DGR had the definitive tendency to be higher in a gastric tube with a larger pyloric opening. In terms of fluid mechanics, DGR can be expressed as a process in which the developed pressure gradient across the pyloric opening becomes zero through the pressure energy loss (which may be transformed into other types of energy). In our model, the pressure energy loss occurs through two-step process (in the pyloric opening, and then in the gastric tube itself). In the 1st step, the pyloric opening can be considered an orifice existing in a pipe. The analytical solution of the pressure energy loss Δp across the pylorus can be given by solving the Bernoulli obstruction equation as follows[18]:
Δp = ρ Q 2 1 β 4 / 2 C d 2 A t 2

where ρ is the fluid density, Q is the flow rate through the pipe of diameter D, β is the opening ratio of the orifice d (=d/D), C d is the discharge coefficient, and A t is the opening area. If the opening ratio β becomes smaller (that is, pyloric opening gets smaller), the pressure energy loss is increased because (1-β 4) gets larger and A t gets smaller. In addition it is well known that C d also get smaller for the smaller β[18]. This means that in small pylorus setting, more pressure energy is exhausted in order to pass the small opening, and less energy is transformed to cause reflux, compared to the large pylorus model. This can be an adequate explanation for the results of the pyloric drainage procedure in the present study.

Another important surgical issue for DGR is the route of esophageal reconstruction. In the present study, the degree of DGR had the definitive tendency to be higher in a PM gastric tube. In terms of fluid mechanics, this issue is related to the 2nd step of reflux (in the gastric tube itself). In the 2nd step, the pressure energy loss mainly occurs by gravity and wall friction in the gastric tube as follows[18]:
Δp = ρgh + f L D ρ v 2 2

where g is the gravitational acceleration, h is the vertical height of refluxate from the horizontal line, f is the Darcy friction factor, L is the length of refluxate from the pylorus, and v is the fluid velocity. At the early stage of reflux, the influence of gravity is important and relatively straightforward, and it can be also estimated intuitively. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3, the RS tube is more upright than PM tube in the lower portion of gastric tube. This aspect is exaggerated when the tube is tilted into a semi-Fowler position. Therefore, more pressure energy is consumed to overcome the gravity in RS tube than in PM tube, since the former is more influenced by gravity due to its upright shape. This explanation may be used to explain the results of most cases in our study. However, about the influence of wall friction, which becomes significant as refluxate ascends, further intuitive estimation becomes difficult because the friction factor should be directly measured in a diverse environment. Thus, the pressure energy loss in the upper portion of gastric tube can vary greatly according to the shape and its course. In a few cases, we think that the wall friction may have played a role in our inability to show a significant difference.

There are some limitations in this study. The first relates to the design of the model. The gastric tube model was highly simplified intentionally for the purpose of this study. In a more sophisticated model which mimics a true gastric tube, we would have to take into consideration factors such as possible contractility of the gastric tube and remnant esophagus, and environmental factors such as pulsation of the heart or the great vessels, to name only a few. The influence of negative intrapleural pressure is another important factor that may promote DGR and was not demonstrated in our model. These criticisms are somewhat countered by the fact that the intrathoracic stomach likely functions as a passive conduit without any contractility for a considerable period, and all the factors except the curve of the tubes and the size of pylorus were the same among the compared groups. We also do not think the issue of negative intrapleural pressure weakens our conclusion because the effect of negative intrapleural pressure would be more definitive in a PM gastric tube than in a RS tube. The second limitation of our study is that the pressure settings were set arbitrarily. Actually, when DGR occurs in patients, it is difficult to know how high the pressure gradient develops, and how long it persists. However, because this study focused on the difference in the dynamics of the refluxate according to the morphology of the tubes, it is not problematic to apply a certain set of distal pressure with a short duration as long as same conditions are applied to the compared groups. The third limitation is whether the conclusion of the present research study is clinically meaningful enough to make a change in a clinical practice. Although statistically significant, the actual differences in the amount and height of refluxate were small between different routes of reconstruction (Table 2). It is not clear whether these relatively minor differences have significant clinical relevance. When discussing a clinical relevance issue, we should consider gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) as well, which was not demonstrated in our model. As shown in the present study, it is clear that a pyloric drainage procedure promotes DGR and in turn, increases bile reflux into the stomach and the esophagus. On the other hand, as shown in our previous work[13], it facilitates gastric emptying and therefore may reduce GER. Thus, it is hard to confirm whether the omission of a pyloric drainage procedure could reduce the patients’ reflux symptoms. Future studies of reflux in the clinical setting, in correlation with symptoms, endoscopic and histological findings, may be required to get more comprehensive information.

Conclusions

We established a method to observe and measure DGR inside the intrathoracic stomach as an esophageal substitute by devising the flow visualization model. Using this model, we have demonstrated that the degree of DGR was significantly higher in the intrathoracic stomach located in PM and/or with a pyloric drainage procedure being performed in the fluid mechanics. This finding may help reduce the incidence of DGR after esophagectomy with gastric interposition in real-world clinical settings.

Abbreviations

DGR: 

Duodenogastric reflux

RS: 

Retrosternal space

PM: 

Posterior mediastinum

GER: 

Gastro-esophageal reflux.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank Hyejin Jeon and Heejin Park for technical assistance to the development of experimental model.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, South Korea
(2)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, South Korea
(3)
Department of Preventive Medicine, Gachon University of Medicine and Science, Incheon, South Korea

References

  1. Dresner SM, Griffin SM, Wayman J, Bennett MK, Hayes N, Raimes SA: Human model of duodenogastro-oesophageal reflux in the development of Barrett’s metaplasia. Br J Surg. 2003, 90: 1120-1128. 10.1002/bjs.4169.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chattopadhyay TK, Shad SK, Kumar A: Intragastric bile acid and symptoms in patients with an intrathoracic stomach after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 1993, 80: 371-373. 10.1002/bjs.1800800336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Yamashita Y, Hirai T, Saeki S, Yoshimoto A, Noma K, Toge T: Comparison of duodenogastric reflux (DGR) to esophageal substitute between retrosternal route and posterior mediastinal route. Nihon Kyobu Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 1994, 42: 1897-1903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gutschow CA, Collard JM, Romagnoli R, Michel JM, Salizzoni M, Hölscher AH: Bile exposure of the denervated stomach as an esophageal substitute. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001, 71: 1786-1791. 10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02535-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Aly A, Jamieson GG: Reflux after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2004, 91: 137-141. 10.1002/bjs.4508.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Shih WJ, Coupal JJ, Domstad PA, Ram MD, Deland FH: Disorders of gallbladder function related to duodenogastric reflux in technetium-99m DISIDA hepatobiliary scintigraphy. Clin Nucl Med. 1987, 12: 857-860. 10.1097/00003072-198711000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Palmes D, Weilinghoff M, Colombo-Benkmann M, Senninger N, Bruewer M: Effect of pyloric drainage procedures on gastric passage and bile reflux after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2007, 392: 135-141. 10.1007/s00423-006-0119-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Katsoulis IE, Robotis I, Kouraklis G, Yannopoulos P: Duodenogastric reflux after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up: the effect of the route of reconstruction. World J Surg. 2005, 29: 174-181. 10.1007/s00268-004-7568-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gawad KA, Hosch SB, Bumann D, Lübeck M, Moneke LC, Bloechle C, Knoefel WT, Busch C, Küchler T, Izbicki JR: How important is the route of reconstruction after esophagectomy: prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999, 94: 1490-1496. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01131.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wang LS, Huang MH, Huang BS, Chien KY: Gastric substitution for resectable carcinoma of the esophagus: an analysis of 368 cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 1992, 53: 289-294. 10.1016/0003-4975(92)91335-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Donington JS: Functional conduit disorders after esophagectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2006, 16: 53-62. 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2006.01.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yajima K, Kosugi S, Kanda T, Matsuki A, Hatakeyama K: Risk factors of reflux esophagitis in the cervical remnant following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction. World J Surg. 2009, 33: 284-289. 10.1007/s00268-008-9856-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee JI, Choi S, Sung J: A flow visualization model of gastric emptying in the intrathoracic stomach after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011, 91: 1039-1045. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.12.035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lirón R, Parrilla P, Martinez de Haro LF, Ortiz A, Robles R, Luján JA, Fuente T, Andrés B: Quantification of duodenogastric reflux in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997, 92: 32-36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Singh S, Bradley L, Richter J: Determinants of esophageal alkaline pH environment in controls and patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Gut. 1993, 34: 309-316. 10.1136/gut.34.3.309.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Soffer EE, Thongsawat S, Ellerbroek S: Prolonged ambulatory duodeno-jejunal manometry in humans: normal values and gender effect. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998, 93: 1318-1323. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.441_k.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bemelman WA, Verburg J, Brummelkamp WH, Klopper PJ: A physical model of the intrathoracic stomach. Am J Physiol. 1988, 254: G168-G175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. White FM: Viscous flow in ducts. Fluid mechanics. Edited by: White FM. 1988, New York: McGraw-Hill, 302-365.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Park et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement