Literature DB >> 11735012

Nasogastric tube versus gastrostomy tube for gastric decompression in abdominal surgery: a prospective, randomized trial comparing patients' tube-related inconvenience.

S Hoffmann1, M Koller, U Plaul, B Stinner, B Gerdes, W Lorenz, M Rothmund.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Perioperative decompression of the stomach is still a common procedure and can be achieved using either nasogastric tubes (NTs) or gastrostomy tubes (GTs). While both procedures appear to be equally effective, some authors believe that NTs are less convenient for patients than GTs. However, to date, no reliable prospective data are available on this issue.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing NTs versus GTs with a total of 110 patients undergoing elective colon surgery. The primary outcome measure was the patient's tube-related inconvenience and pain, assessed in a standardized interview on day 2 after surgery and quantified by means of a visual-analog scale (VAS). A questionnaire including the EORTC QLQ-C30 and additional items regarding retrospective tube-related judgements was administered on the day of discharge and 4 weeks after discharge. Secondary endpoints were the therapy-related morbidity and general complications.
RESULTS: When patients were asked which of their drainage tubes (all patients had three or four drainage tubes, such as decompression drains, urinary drains, central venous line) was most inconvenient, 43% (CI 33-53%) in the NT group reported that the NT was most inconvenient, while only 4% (CI 1-10%) of the GT patients judged the GT most inconvenient ( P<0.001, Chi(2) test). This effect was also found in VAS ratings of inconvenience and discomfort ( P<0.01). Also postoperatively (p.o.), NT patients evidenced less preference for their tube system (day 2 p.o.: 71%, CI 61-80%; 4 weeks p.o.: 66%, CI 56-75%) than did GT patients (day 2 p.o.: 94%, CI 88-98%; 4 weeks p.o.: 91% CI 84-96%); again, these differences were statistically significant ( P<0.02; Chi(2) test). No differences between groups emerged regarding global quality of life or conventional clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION: This prospective randomized trial supports the clinical observation that NT causes more subjective inconvenience than GT. In cases when a prolonged postoperative ileus is expected, decisions for a prophylactic decompressing tube system have to weigh up the possibilities of different averse clinical as well as subjective outcomes. It is then preferable to include patients' preferences in the individual decision making process (shared-decision making).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11735012     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-001-0257-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  12 in total

1.  [The role of anesthesiology in fast track concepts in colonic surgery].

Authors:  M Hensel; W Schwenk; A Bloch; W Raue; S Stracke; T Volk; C von Heymann; J M Müller; W J Kox; C Spies
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding improve patients' rehabilitation after colorectostomy.

Authors:  Tong Zhou; Xiao-Ting Wu; Ye-Jiang Zhou; Xiong Huang; Wei Fan; Yue-Chun Li
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Temporary transgastrostomy tube for ileus.

Authors:  Satoru Takayama; Masaki Sakamoto; Takehiro Wakasugi; Hiromitsu Takeyama
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-07-17

4.  Roux-en-Y reconstruction does not require gastric decompression after radical distal gastrectomy.

Authors:  Cheng-Jueng Chen; Tsang-Pai Liu; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Sheng-Der Hsua; Tsai-Yuan Hsieh; Heng-Cheng Chu; Chung-Bao Hsieh; Teng-Wei Chen; De-Chuan Chan
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Gastric decompression and enteral feeding through a double-lumen gastrojejunostomy tube improves outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Lloyd A Mack; Ioannis G Kaklamanos; Alan S Livingstone; Joe U Levi; Carolyn Robinson; Danny Sleeman; Dido Franceschi; Oliver F Bathe
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Transcervical gastric tube drainage facilitates patient mobility and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Matthew J Schuchert; Brian L Pettiford; Joshua P Landreneau; Jonathon Waxman; Arman Kilic; Ricardo S Santos; Michael S Kent; Amgad El-Sherif; Ghulam Abbas; James D Luketich; Rodney J Landreneau
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract.

Authors:  Wen-Zhang Lei; Gao-Ping Zhao; Zhong Cheng; Ka Li; Zong-Guang Zhou
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery.

Authors:  R Nelson; S Edwards; B Tse
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-07-18

9.  Checking for interviewer bias in outcome assessment: a method for strengthening the design of prospective, randomised trials in surgery.

Authors:  M Koller; S Hoffmann; M Rothmund; W Lorenz; U Plaul
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2003-10-29       Impact factor: 3.445

10.  Nasogastric- vs. percutaneous gastrostomy tube for prophylactic gastric decompression after cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Authors:  Job P van Kooten; Nadine L de Boer; Marjolein Diepeveen; Cornelis Verhoef; Jacobus W A Burger; Alexandra R M Brandt-Kerkhof; Eva V E Madsen
Journal:  Pleura Peritoneum       Date:  2021-03-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.