OBJECTIVE: As part of our ongoing quality improvement effort, we evaluated our conventional approach to post-oesophagectomy management by comparing it to an alternative postoperative management pathway. METHODS: Medical records from 386 consecutive patients undergoing oesophagectomy with gastric conduit for oesophageal cancer or Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia were analysed retrospectively (July 2004 to August 2008). The conventional pathway involved a routine radiographic contrast swallow study at 5-7 days after oesophagectomy with initiation of oral intake if no leak was detected. In the alternative pathway, a feeding jejunostomy was placed for enteral feeding and used exclusively until oral intake was gradually initiated at home at 4 weeks after oesophagectomy. No contrast swallow was obtained in the alternative pathway group unless indicated by clinical suspicion of an anastomotic leak. Each group was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with respect to anastomotic leak rates, length of hospitalisation, re-admission and other complications. RESULTS: A total of 276 (72%) patients underwent conventional postoperative management, 110 (28%) followed the alternative pathway. Patient characteristics were similar in both the groups. The anastomotic leak rate was lower in the alternative pathway with three clinically significant leaks (2.7%) versus 33 in the conventional pathway (12.0%; p=0.01). Among patients undergoing a radiographic contrast swallow examination, a false-negative rate of 5.8% was observed. The swallow study of 14 patients (5.9%) was complicated by aspiration of oral contrast. Postoperatively, 7.3% of patients suffered from pneumonia. There were no significant differences overall in postoperative pulmonary or cardiac complications associated with either pathway. Median length of hospitalisation was 2 days shorter for the alternative pathway (7 days) than the conventional pathway (9 days; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in unplanned re-admission rates. CONCLUSION: An alternative postoperative pathway following oesophagectomy involving delayed oral intake and avoidance of a routine contrast swallow study is associated with a shortened length of hospitalisation without a higher risk of complication after hospital discharge. Copyright (c) 2009 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: As part of our ongoing quality improvement effort, we evaluated our conventional approach to post-oesophagectomy management by comparing it to an alternative postoperative management pathway. METHODS: Medical records from 386 consecutive patients undergoing oesophagectomy with gastric conduit for oesophageal cancer or Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia were analysed retrospectively (July 2004 to August 2008). The conventional pathway involved a routine radiographic contrast swallow study at 5-7 days after oesophagectomy with initiation of oral intake if no leak was detected. In the alternative pathway, a feeding jejunostomy was placed for enteral feeding and used exclusively until oral intake was gradually initiated at home at 4 weeks after oesophagectomy. No contrast swallow was obtained in the alternative pathway group unless indicated by clinical suspicion of an anastomotic leak. Each group was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with respect to anastomotic leak rates, length of hospitalisation, re-admission and other complications. RESULTS: A total of 276 (72%) patients underwent conventional postoperative management, 110 (28%) followed the alternative pathway. Patient characteristics were similar in both the groups. The anastomotic leak rate was lower in the alternative pathway with three clinically significant leaks (2.7%) versus 33 in the conventional pathway (12.0%; p=0.01). Among patients undergoing a radiographic contrast swallow examination, a false-negative rate of 5.8% was observed. The swallow study of 14 patients (5.9%) was complicated by aspiration of oral contrast. Postoperatively, 7.3% of patients suffered from pneumonia. There were no significant differences overall in postoperative pulmonary or cardiac complications associated with either pathway. Median length of hospitalisation was 2 days shorter for the alternative pathway (7 days) than the conventional pathway (9 days; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in unplanned re-admission rates. CONCLUSION: An alternative postoperative pathway following oesophagectomy involving delayed oral intake and avoidance of a routine contrast swallow study is associated with a shortened length of hospitalisation without a higher risk of complication after hospital discharge. Copyright (c) 2009 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: Eveline Internullo; Johnny Moons; Philippe Nafteux; Willy Coosemans; Georges Decker; Paul De Leyn; Dirk Van Raemdonck; Toni Lerut Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Arjun Pennathur; James D Luketich; Rodney J Landreneau; Julie Ward; Neil A Christie; Michael K Gibson; Matthew Schuchert; Kristi Cooper; Stephanie R Land; Chandra P Belani Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jin Ra; E Carter Paulson; John Kucharczuk; Katrina Armstrong; Christopher Wirtalla; Rachel Rapaport-Kelz; Larry R Kaiser; Francis R Spitz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: James M Donahue; Francis C Nichols; Zhuo Li; David A Schomas; Mark S Allen; Stephen D Cassivi; Aminah Jatoi; Robert C Miller; Dennis A Wigle; K Robert Shen; Claude Deschamps Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Andrew R Davies; Matthew J Forshaw; Aadil A Khan; Alia S Noorani; Vanash M Patel; Dirk C Strauss; Robert C Mason Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Stephanie Phillips; Jasmina Dedic-Hagan; d'Arcy Ferris Baxter; H Van der Wall; G L Falk Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Gijs H Berkelmans; Frans van Workum; Teus J Weijs; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Jelle P Ruurda; Ewout A Kouwenhoven; Marc J van Det; Camiel Rosman; Richard van Hillegersberg; Misha D Luyer Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Hanneke W J van Eden; Jelle P Ruurda; Misha D P Luyer; Elles Steenhagen; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: William H Allum; Luigi Bonavina; Stephen D Cassivi; Miguel A Cuesta; Zhao Ming Dong; Valter Nilton Felix; Edgar Figueredo; Piers A C Gatenby; Leonie Haverkamp; Maksat A Ibraev; Mark J Krasna; René Lambert; Rupert Langer; Michael P N Lewis; Katie S Nason; Kevin Parry; Shaun R Preston; Jelle P Ruurda; Lara W Schaheen; Roger P Tatum; Igor N Turkin; Sylvia van der Horst; Donald L van der Peet; Peter C van der Sluis; Richard van Hillegersberg; Justin C R Wormald; Peter C Wu; Barbara M Zonderhuis Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Li-Xiang Mei; Guan-Biao Liang; Lei Dai; Yong-Yong Wang; Ming-Wu Chen; Jun-Xian Mo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Sheraz R Markar; Henner Schmidt; Sonia Kunz; Artur Bodnar; Michal Hubka; Donald E Low Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 3.452