Feasibility of complete nasogastric tube omission in esophagectomy patients

Chest vs. neck anastomotic leak post esophagectomy for malignancy: rate, predictors, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is a major contributor to comorbidity and mortality following esophagectomy. We sought to assess rate and predictors of leak after esophagectomy and compare outcomes of chest versus neck anastomotic leaks.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed utilizing National-Surgical-Quality-Improvement-Program data from 2016-2019 for patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared. Patients were classified into two groups: Ivor Lewis esophagectomy [ILE, chest leak (CL)] and transhiatal esophagectomy (THE)/McKeown esophagectomy [ME, neck leak (NL)]. Multivariable regression models were constructed to determine predictors of each type of leak and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1,665 patients underwent esophagectomy with 14.1% reported post-operative leak, 61% of patients underwent ILE while 39% underwent THE or ME. Of patients who underwent ILE, 13.8% had CL with complications including significantly higher length of stay and mortality compared to patients without leak. Independent predictors of CL included: diabetes, hypertension, advanced disease stage, chronic steroid use, and operative time. Ninety-five patients (14.6%) who underwent either THE or ME had NL with similar complications. Diabetes, pre-operative white blood cell (WBC), and operative time were independent predictors for NL. On multivariable regression, CL was associated with greater odds of requiring intervention compared with NL.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-esophagectomy CL and NL are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Diabetes and operative time were independent predictors for both leaks while steroid use, hypertension, and advanced disease stage predicted CL. CL was associated with greater odds of needing an intervention, but contrary to conventional wisdom, was not associated with higher morbidity or mortality.

Contrast-Enhanced Radiologic Evaluation of Gastric Conduit Emptying After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is the standard of care in many hospitals after esophagectomy for gastric conduit decompression. An upper gastrointestinal contrast passage evaluation (UGI-CE) is a diagnostic test to evaluate passage through the gastric conduit. The authors hypothesized that introducing routine UGI-CE after esophagectomy results in earlier removal of the NGT and resumption of oral intake.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated two consecutive series of patients undergoing esophagectomy, one before (control group) and one after the introduction of a routine UGI-CE on postoperative day (POD) 3 or 4 (UGI-CE group). If contrast passage was found on the UGI-CE, the NGT was capped and removed. In the control group, the NGT was routinely capped and removed on day 5 after surgery. The primary outcome was the POD on which oral diet was initiated. The secondary outcomes were the day of NGT removal, NGT reinsertions, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Each cohort included 74 patients. In the UGI-CE group, the contrast test was performed on median POD 3.5 (IQR, 3-4). The median day of NGT removal, initiation of clear liquids, and full liquid and solid intake was 1 to 2 days earlier in the UGI-CE group than in the control group (i.e. POD 4, 4, 5, and 6 vs. POD 5, 5, 6.5, and 8; all p < 0.001). The study found no significant differences in NGT reinsertions, pneumonias, anastomotic leakages, or hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of a UGI-CE after esophagectomy led to earlier removal of the NGT and earlier resumption of oral intake.

Feeding jejunostomy following esophagectomy may increase the occurrence of postoperative small bowel obstruction

This study aimed to clarify the characteristics and treatment of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy in patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. In this single-center retrospective study, 363 patients underwent esophagectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer at the Wakayama Medical University Hospital between January 2014 and June 2021. All patients who underwent esophagectomy routinely underwent feeding jejunostomy or gastrostomy. Feeding jejunostomy was used in the cases of gastric tube reconstruction through the posterior mediastinal route or colon reconstruction, while feeding gastrostomy was used in cases of retrosternal route gastric tube reconstruction. Nasogastric feeding tubes and round ligament technique were not used. Postoperative small bowel obstruction occurred in 19 of 197 cases of posterior mediastinal route reconstruction (9.6%), but in no cases of retrosternal route reconstruction because of the feeding gastrostomy (P < .0001). Of the 19 patients who had bowel obstruction after feeding jejunostomy, 10 patients underwent reoperation (53%) and the remaining 9 patients had conservative treatment (47%). The cumulative incidence of bowel obstruction after feeding jejunostomy was 6.7% at 1 year and 8.7% at 2 years. Feeding jejunostomy following esophagectomy is a risk factor for small bowel obstruction. We recommend feeding gastrostomy inserted from the antrum to the jejunum in the cases of gastric tube reconstruction through the retrosternal route or nasogastric feeding tube in the cases of reconstruction through the posterior mediastinal route.

ERAS guidelines-driven upper gastrointestinal contrast study after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Early nasogastric tube (NGT) removal is a component of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for esophagectomy. The aim of this study is to assess a protocol-driven application of UGI contrast study to facilitate early NGT removal and direct a standardized therapeutic response in patients with evidence for delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE).

METHODS

All patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 2017 and October 2019 were prospectively enrolled. Esophageal resections were performed through different surgical approaches involving gastric conduit reconstruction. A standardized clinical protocol (SCP) was systematically applied, which targeted a UGI contrast study on POD 2-3 to allow immediate NGT removal or initiate DGCE protocols.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 50 patients undergoing open Ivor Lewis (42%), left thoracoabdominal (46%), and three-field procedure (12%) with gastric conduit reconstruction and either upper thoracic (66%) or cervical (34%) anastomosis. Jejunostomy was routinely placed while pyloric procedures were not performed. Patients achieving targeted contrast study (86%) demonstrated significantly earlier NGT removal (p-value 0.010), oral protocol initiation (0.001), and decreased length of hospital stay (6 vs 10 days, 0.024). Four patients (8%) presented with radiology signs of DCGE and underwent protocoled treatment, eventually achieving discharge similar to the overall study population (7 vs 8.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Protocol-driven UGI contrast study can effectively provide objective data facilitating early NGT removal and discharge. Patients with DGCE can successfully undergo intervention to improve conduit emptying and adhere to ERAS discharge goals.

Nasogastric tube drainage and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection: UK practice variation and effect on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Over 1500 patients with oesophageal cancer undergo a resection in the UK each year. At surgery, patients commonly have a nasogastric tube (NGT) placed and may undergo a pyloric intervention. There is conflicting evidence on the use of both NGTs and pyloric interventions during oesophageal resections. We performed a national survey of oesophageal centres and assessed practice variation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to all resection centres in England, Wales and Scotland. Variations in practice regarding NGTs and pyloric intervention were assessed, and compared to nationally reported centre volumes and length-of-stay data.

RESULTS

Most centres (31/39, 79%) responded to the survey. All centres reported routine NGT use. The majority of centres (19/31, 61%) did not perform pyloric interventions. When used, surgical pyloroplasty was the most frequent strategy (8/31, 26%). Routine post-operative radiological assessment was utilised in 9/31 (29%) of centres. Criteria for NGT removal and dietary progression was highly variable, with every centre reporting different protocols. There were no significant differences in practice between high and low volume centres. There were also no trends seen when comparing centres above vs at-or-below the median length-of-stay. The majority (68%) of centres were willing to take part in a trial assessing NGT use and pyloric interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Pyloric intervention use varies widely, with no clear link to outcomes. NGT use remains standard practice despite evidence for safe omission. Surgeons require and recognise the need for a trial to assess requirement for NGTs and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection.

Study on the value of nasogastric tube nutrition nursing in critical patients with indwelling nasogastric tube

PURPOSE

To explore the application value of nasogastric tube nutrition nursing in critical patients with an indwelling nasogastric tube.

METHODS

A total of 130 patients who were hospitalized in the ICU of our hospital and retained nasogastric tubes from January 2019 to January 2020 were selected as the research subjects, and they were divided into a control group (n=65, routine nursing) and an observation group (n=65, nasogastric tube nutrition nursing) according to a random number table method. The nutrition index level, gastrointestinal complications, adverse events, Glasgow coma index (GCS) score, acute physiology and chronic health (APACHE II), and quality of life score of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The serum prealbumin, serum transferrin, and serum albumin after nursing were higher than those before nursing, and the observation group was higher than the control group; the observation group had lower incidence of diarrhea, constipation and gastric retention; the incidence of adverse events in the observation group was lower as well; the GCS score of the observation group after nursing was higher in comparison with the control group, while APACHE II score in the observation group was lower; the observation group had higher quality of life score as compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

The application of nasogastric tube nutritional nursing in critical patients with an indwelling nasogastric tube has high therapeutic value and is worthy of promotion.

Feasibility of enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery has generally been applied to gastrointestinal surgeries; however, few studies have investigated minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected between January 2015 and April 2020 for patients who underwent esophagectomy. Of these patients, those who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was selected for the investigation. Perioperative outcomes and nutritional index were compared using propensity score matching between the conventional group and the enhanced recovery group.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 73 and 46 were treated with conventional and enhanced recovery protocol, respectively. Forty-two pairs were matched in two groups. The enhanced recovery group showed a lower rate of pulmonary complications (9.5% vs. 28.5%, p = 0.0235), abdominal dysfunctions (16.7% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.0078), and shorter hospital stay as compared with the conventional group (17.5 days vs. 23 days, p = 0.0034). The loss of body weight (6.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.0065) and body mass index (5.6% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.0017) were significantly lower in the enhanced recovery group than in the conventional group. In contrast, nutritional biochemistry data did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the promotion of an enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy maintains nutritional status without increasing postoperative complications.

Results of a National Survey about Therapeutic Management in Esophageal Cancer

There are numerous controversial aspects in the perioperative and surgical management of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences between the hospitals of our country in the adjuvant and surgical treatment of these patients. We conducted a descriptive study of 56 surveys answered from February to April 2020, evaluating hospital characteristics, number of procedures, management of distal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the middle third of the esophagus, type of anastomosis, use of nasogastric tube and drains, and clinical follow-up. The median number of annual esophagectomies per hospital was 10, and only 7.1% performed more than 20. In distal adenocarcinoma, 62.5% use preoperative chemoradiotherapy, an abdominal and transthoracic approach (57.1%), and an infracarinal lymphadenectomy (51.8%) or extended to right paratracheal lymph nodes (41.1%). In squamous cell carcinoma of the middle third of the esophagus, 89.3% use preoperative chemoradiotherapy, surgery in three fields (73.2%) and extended mediastinal lymphadenectomy (52%). Intrathoracic anastomosis is performed mechanically in 77.8% and cervical anastomosis preferably manually (71.4%). Pleural and abdominal drains are usually placed by 77.6% and 48.2%, respectively, while the nasogastric tube is normally used by 57.1%. A clinical pathway is followed by 57.1%, and 28.6% use a specific enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Thus, in the management of esophageal cancer, there are some clear differences between hospitals in our country regarding adjuvant treatment, surgical approach, type of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis performed.

Nasogastric tube utilization after esophagectomy: an unnecessary gesture?

INTRODUCTION

Nasogastric decompressive tube utilization has been accepted as one of the basic perioperative care measures after esophageal resection surgery. However, with the development of multimodal rehabilitation programs and without clear evidence to support their use, the systematic indication of this measure may be controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective, descriptive and comparative study of patients who had undergone Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our center -from January 2015 to December 2018- with placement (Group S), or without placement (Group N) of a decompressive tube in gastroplasty during postoperative period. Epidemiological variables and differences between groups in post-surgical morbidity and mortality, hospital stay, onset of oral tolerance and the need for nasogastric tube placement were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients were included in this study, with a median age of 61 years, being 86% male. 46.5% were hypertensive, 25.5% had lung disease and 16.3% had diabetes mellitus. The median length of hospital stay was 9 days in group S versus 11.5 days in group N, with no differences in the onset of oral tolerance. Anastomotic dehiscence rate was 5% and 0% respectively. The overall mortality was 2.3% in the first 90 days, without differences between the groups. Placement of nasogastric tube during postoperative period was required only in 1 patient (4.3%) of the group N.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-use of nasogastric tube during postoperative period of an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is a safe measure, as it is not associated with a higher rate of complications or hospital stay. This fact may be able to improve patients' comfort and postoperative recovery.

Impact on Short-Term Complications of Early Oral Feeding in Patients with Esophageal Cancer After Esophagectomy

To evaluate early oral feeding (EOF) in short-term outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy. 179 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy between January 2016 and February 2018 were enrolled for this study. 87 patients with EOF without nasogastric tube or nasogastric tube was removed within 24 h, were selected as the experimental group, whereas 92 patients who received nasojejunal tube feeding were set as the control group. All laboratory testing, clinical features, and hospitalization expenses were compared between the two groups. No statistical significance was observed between the two groups in hemoglobin, albumin, and prealbumin levels after esophagectomy. Notably, there was no significant difference in the incidence of severe pneumonia and anastomotic leakage between the two groups. Admittance period, postoperative defecation time, and medical expenses were significantly decreased among patients with EOF (P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox multiple-factor regression analysis revealed that there was no correlation between EOF and the risk of anastomotic leakage. EOF might not be a risk factor for increasing the incidence of severe pneumonia and anastomotic leakage in patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy, and it could reduce the hospitalization period as well as control medical expenses.

Thoracic stomach syndrome after whole-stomach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer mimicking tension pneumothorax: a case report

BACKGROUND

Sudden onset of respiratory failure is one of the most fearful manifestations in intensive care units. Among the differential diagnoses of respiratory failure, tension pneumothorax is a life-threatening disease that requires immediate invasive intervention to drain the air from the thoracic cavity. However, other etiologies with manifestations similar to those of tension pneumothorax should also be considered after whole-stomach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We report a rare case of a patient with thoracic stomach syndrome mimicking tension pneumothorax after esophagectomy with whole-stomach reconstruction.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 49-year-old Asian woman was admitted to our intensive care unit after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with whole-stomach reconstruction while under sedation and intubated. Despite initial stable vital signs, the patient rapidly developed tachypnea, low blood pressure, and low oxygen saturation. Chest radiography revealed a mediastinal shift and led to a presumptive diagnosis of tension pneumothorax. Hence, an aspiration catheter was inserted into the right pleural space. However, her clinical symptoms did not improve. Chest computed tomography was performed, which revealed a significantly distended reconstructed stomach that was compressing the nearby lung parenchyma. Her respiration improved immediately after nasogastric tube placement. After the procedure, we successfully extubated the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to tension pneumothorax, thoracic stomach syndrome requires immediate drainage of air from the thoracic cavity. However, unlike tension pneumothorax, this condition requires nasogastric tube insertion, which is the only way to safely remove the accumulated air and avoid possible complications that could occur due to percutaneous drainage. For patient safety, it might be clinically important to place nasogastric tubes after esophagectomy with whole-stomach reconstruction, even if radiographic guidance is required. In addition, clinicians should consider thoracic stomach syndrome as one of the differential diagnoses of respiratory failure after whole-stomach esophagectomy.