Literature DB >> 12119515

Pyloric drainage (pyloroplasty) or no drainage in gastric reconstruction after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

John D Urschel1, Chris J Blewett, J Edward M Young, John D Miller, W Frederick Bennett.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: A gastric conduit is usually used to reconstruct the foregut after esophagectomy for cancer. The gastric emptying may be impaired after this operation, so some esophageal surgeons routinely add a pyloric drainage procedure (pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effect of pyloric drainage on patient outcomes.
METHODS: Medline and manual searches were done (completed independently and in duplicate) to identify all published RCTs that addressed the issue of pyloric drainage procedures during gastric conduit reconstruction of the esophagus. The selection process was inclusive; no trials were excluded. Trial validity assessment was done, and a trial quality score was assigned. Early outcomes assessed by meta-analysis included operative mortality, esophagogastric anastomotic leaks, pulmonary morbidity, pyloric drainage complications, fatal pulmonary aspiration, and gastric outlet obstruction. A random-effects model was used, and the relative risk was the principal measure of effect. Systematic semiquantitative review was used for late outcomes such as gastric emptying, bile reflux, nutritional status, and obstructive foregut symptoms.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs, that included a total of 553 patients, were selected, with quality scores ranging from 1 to 4 (5-point Jadad scale). Selection and validity agreement was strong. The relative risk (95% CI; p value), expressed as pyloric drainage versus no drainage (treatment vs. control), was 0.92 (0.34, 2.44; p = 0.86) for operative mortality, 0.90 (0.47, 1.76; p = 0.77) for esophagogastric anastomotic leaks, 0.69 (0.42, 1.14; p = 0.15) for pulmonary morbidity, 2.55 (0.34, 18.98; p = 0.36) for pyloric drainage complications, 0.25 (0.04, 1.60; p = 0.14) for fatal pulmonary aspiration, and 0.18 (0.03, 0.97; p = 0.046) for gastric outlet obstruction. Systematic semiquantitative review showed a nonsignificant trend favoring pyloric drainage for the late outcomes of gastric emptying, nutritional status, and obstructive foregut symptoms. For the late outcome of bile reflux, there was a nonsignificant trend favoring the no-drainage group. The scintographic gastric emptying time, expressed as a ratio (pyloric drainage/no drainage), was 0.53.
CONCLUSIONS: Data synthesized from existing RCTs show that pyloric drainage procedures reduce the occurrence of early postoperative gastric outlet obstruction after esophagectomy with gastric reconstruction, but they have little effect on other early and late patient outcomes. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12119515     DOI: 10.1159/000064206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Surg        ISSN: 0253-4886            Impact factor:   2.588


  37 in total

1.  Duodenogastric reflux after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up: the effect of the route of reconstruction.

Authors:  Iraklis E Katsoulis; Ioannis Robotis; Grigorios Kouraklis; Panagiotis Yannopoulos
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Surgical management of esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Amit N Patel; John T Preskitt; Joseph A Kuhn; Robert F Hebeler; Richard E Wood; Harold C Urschel
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2003-07

3.  Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery.

Authors:  Satoru Shikata; Takeo Nakayama; Yoshinori Noguchi; Yoshinori Taji; Hisakazu Yamagishi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Comments on the publication "effect of pyloric drainage procedures on gastric passage and bile reflux after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction by Palmes et al.".

Authors:  Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Risk factors of reflux esophagitis in the cervical remnant following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction.

Authors:  Kazuhito Yajima; Shin-Ichi Kosugi; Tatsuo Kanda; Atsushi Matsuki; Katsuyoshi Hatakeyama
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better?

Authors:  Mara B Antonoff; Varun Puri; Bryan F Meyers; Kevin Baumgartner; Jennifer M Bell; Stephen Broderick; A Sasha Krupnick; Daniel Kreisel; G Alexander Patterson; Traves D Crabtree
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Long-term quality of life after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Silvio Däster; Savas D Soysal; Lea Stoll; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Ackermann
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  Management of delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Rusi Zhang; Lanjun Zhang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  Bilateral transcutaneous electroacupuncture for overdilation of gastric tube after esophagectomy: Report of a case.

Authors:  Zhi Wang; Jin-Cheng Liu; Qi-Liang Chen; Jun-Xiao Li; Qian-Hong Wu; Qiong Wu; Kang Li; Cheng-Xue Dang
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 1.978

Review 10.  Minimally invasive surgery and cancer: controversies part 1.

Authors:  Melanie Goldfarb; Steven Brower; S D Schwaitzberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.