AIM: To discuss the clinical significance of postoperative gastrointestinal decompression in operation on lower digestive tract. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-eight patients with excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract were divided into two groups, i.e. the group with postoperative gastrointestinal decompression and the group without postoperative gastrointestinal decompression. Clinical therapeutic outcome and incidence of complication were compared between two groups. Furthermore, an investigation on application of gastrointestinal decompression was carried out among 200 general surgeons. RESULTS: The volume of gastric juice in decompression group was about 200 mL every day after operation. Both groups had a lower girth before operation than every day after operation. No difference in length of the first passage of gas by anus and defecation after operation was found between two groups. The overall incidence of complications was obviously higher in decompression group than in non-decompression group (28% vs 8.2%, P<0.001). The incidence of pharyngolaryngitis was up to 23.1%. There was also no difference between two groups regarding the length of hospitalization after operation. The majority (97.5%) of general surgeons held that gastrointestinal decompression should be placed till passage of gas by anus, and only 2.5% of surgeons thought that gastrointestinal decompression should be placed for 2-3 d before passage of gas by anus. Nobody (0%) deemed it unnecessary for placing gastrointestinal compression after operation. CONCLUSION: Application of gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract cannot effectively reduce gastrointestinal tract pressure and has no obvious effect on preventing postoperative complications. On the contrary, it may increase the incidence of pharyngolaryngitis and other complications. Therefore, it is more beneficial to the recovery of patients without undergoing gastrointestinal decompression.
AIM: To discuss the clinical significance of postoperative gastrointestinal decompression in operation on lower digestive tract. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-eight patients with excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract were divided into two groups, i.e. the group with postoperative gastrointestinal decompression and the group without postoperative gastrointestinal decompression. Clinical therapeutic outcome and incidence of complication were compared between two groups. Furthermore, an investigation on application of gastrointestinal decompression was carried out among 200 general surgeons. RESULTS: The volume of gastric juice in decompression group was about 200 mL every day after operation. Both groups had a lower girth before operation than every day after operation. No difference in length of the first passage of gas by anus and defecation after operation was found between two groups. The overall incidence of complications was obviously higher in decompression group than in non-decompression group (28% vs 8.2%, P<0.001). The incidence of pharyngolaryngitis was up to 23.1%. There was also no difference between two groups regarding the length of hospitalization after operation. The majority (97.5%) of general surgeons held that gastrointestinal decompression should be placed till passage of gas by anus, and only 2.5% of surgeons thought that gastrointestinal decompression should be placed for 2-3 d before passage of gas by anus. Nobody (0%) deemed it unnecessary for placing gastrointestinal compression after operation. CONCLUSION: Application of gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract cannot effectively reduce gastrointestinal tract pressure and has no obvious effect on preventing postoperative complications. On the contrary, it may increase the incidence of pharyngolaryngitis and other complications. Therefore, it is more beneficial to the recovery of patients without undergoing gastrointestinal decompression.
Authors: P R Savassi-Rocha; S A Conceicão; J T Ferreira; M T Diniz; I C Campos; V A Fernandes; D Garavini; L P Castro Journal: Surg Gynecol Obstet Date: 1992-04
Authors: B G Wolff; J H Pembeton; J A van Heerden; R W Beart; S Nivatvongs; R M Devine; R R Dozois; D M Ilstrup Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1989-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: William E Fisher; Sally E Hodges; Guillermina Cruz; Avo Artinyan; Eric J Silberfein; Charolette H Ahern; Eunji Jo; F Charles Brunicardi Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Scott R Steele; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sarah B Jochum; Ethan M Ritz; Anuradha R Bhama; Dana M Hayden; Theodore J Saclarides; Joanne Favuzza Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-01-04 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: James Wei Tatt Toh; Geoffrey Peter Collins; Nimalan Pathma-Nathan; Toufic El-Khoury; Alexander Engel; Stephen Smith; Arthur Richardson; Grahame Ctercteko Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 2.895