Literature DB >> 18560944

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

Matthew J Schuchert1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Standard nasogastric decompression following esophagectomy is associated with reduced patient comfort and mobility and impaired hypopharyngeal function--predisposing the patient to sinusitis, pharyngitis, and the risk of aspiration. In this study, we evaluate the results of the transcervical gastric tube drainage in the setting of esophagectomy.
METHODS: Transcervical gastric tube decompression was performed on 145 consecutive patients undergoing open esophagectomy between 2003 and 2007. Postoperative outcome variables include morbidity, mortality, esophagostomy duration, and length of stay.
RESULTS: There were 107 males and 38 females (median age = 66; range = 37-87). Perioperative mortality was 2.8%. Major complications included five anastomotic leaks (3.4%), ten pneumonias (6.9%), two myocardial infarctions (1.4%), and the need for reoperation in four patients (bleeding, dehiscence). Median duration of transcervical drainage was 8 days. No tubes were dislodged prematurely. There were no bleeding complications. Four patients developed cellulitis near the cervical gastric tube site and were treated successfully with antibiotics and/or tube removal.
CONCLUSIONS: Transcervical gastric decompression can be performed safely with minimal complication risk. Inadvertent tube removal was not encountered in this series. The use of this technique may help to promote accelerated patient mobilization, greater patient comfort, and a durable means of gastric decompression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18560944     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-008-0541-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  23 in total

1.  Outcomes after esophagectomy: a ten-year prospective cohort.

Authors:  Stephen H Bailey; David A Bull; David H Harpole; Jeffrey J Rentz; Leigh A Neumayer; Theodore N Pappas; Jennifer Daley; William G Henderson; Barbara Krasnicka; Shukri F Khuri
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Cervical pharyngostomy for feeding after maxillofacial surgery.

Authors:  H P Royster; R B Noone; W P Graham; S D Theogaraj
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1968-10       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Cervical pharyngostomy. A safe alternative for gastrointestinal decompression.

Authors:  J H Lyons
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1974-04       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Cervical esophagostomy in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  G M English; H M Morfit; E R Ratzer
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol       Date:  1970-10

5.  Modern 5-year survival of resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma: single institution experience with 263 patients.

Authors:  Giuseppe Portale; Jeffrey A Hagen; Jeffrey H Peters; Linda S Chan; Steven R DeMeester; Tasha A K Gandamihardja; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Old-fashioned but modern tube cervical esophagostomy.

Authors:  Fumiyo Higaki; Masahiro Oishi; Takaya Higaki; Yuu Hayata
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Cervical gastrostomy in the surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer by reconstruction with the stomach.

Authors:  J L Barros
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1981-11       Impact factor: 9.139

8.  Transthoracic esophagectomy: a safe approach to carcinoma of the esophagus.

Authors:  D J Mathisen; H C Grillo; E W Wilkins; A C Moncure; A D Hilgenberg
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of nasogastric drainage on tracheal acid aspiration following oesophagectomy.

Authors:  M J Shackcloth; E McCarron; J Kendall; G N Russell; S H Pennefather; J Tran; R D Page
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Percutaneous cervical pharyngostomy. A comfortable and convenient alternative to protracted nasogastric intubation.

Authors:  S E Meehan; R A Wood; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  4 in total

1.  Comparison of the short-term health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer with different routes of gastric tube reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Lijie Tan; Mingxiang Feng; Yi Zhang; Qun Wang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Contribution of robotics to minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Ismael Diez Del Val; Carlos Loureiro Gonzalez; Santiago Larburu Etxaniz; Julen Barrenetxea Asua; Saioa Leturio Fernandez; Sandra Ruiz Carballo; Eider Etxebarria Beitia; Patricia Perez de Villarreal; Lorena Hierro-Olabarria; Jose Esteban Bilbao Axpe; Jaime Jesus Mendez Martin
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-01-24

3.  Free jejunal graft for reconstruction of defects in the hypopharynx and cervical esophagus following the cancer resections.

Authors:  Dean Zhao; Xingqiang Gao; Limei Guan; Wenling Su; Jing Gao; Cunshan Liu; Xianyang Luo; Xiaoyan Li
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 4.  Is early oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery feasible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Xiaoping Liu; Da Wang; Liansheng Zheng; Tingyu Mou; Hao Liu; Guoxin Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.