Elodie Gaignard1,2, Damien Bergeat1,2, Laetitia Courtin-Tanguy1,2, Michel Rayar1,2,3, Aude Merdrignac1,2, Fabien Robin1,2, Karim Boudjema1,2,3, Helene Beloeil1,2,3,4, Bernard Meunier1,2, Laurent Sulpice5,6,7,8. 1. Université de Rennes 1, F-35000, Rennes, France. 2. Service de Chirurgie Hépatobiliaire et Digestive, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. 3. CIC INSERM 1414, Rennes, France. 4. INSERM 1241, NUMECAN (Nutrition Metabolism and Cancer), Rennes, France. 5. Université de Rennes 1, F-35000, Rennes, France. laurent.sulpice@chu-rennes.fr. 6. Service de Chirurgie Hépatobiliaire et Digestive, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. laurent.sulpice@chu-rennes.fr. 7. CIC INSERM 1414, Rennes, France. laurent.sulpice@chu-rennes.fr. 8. INSERM 1241, NUMECAN (Nutrition Metabolism and Cancer), Rennes, France. laurent.sulpice@chu-rennes.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the spread of enhanced recovery programs, early withdrawal of the nasogastric tube (NGT) is recommended after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), although few data on the safety of this practice are available. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the absence of nasogastric decompression after PD on postoperative outcome. STUDY DESIGN: All consecutive patients undergoing PD between January 2014 and December 2015 at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Since May 2015, all operated patients had the NGT removed immediately after the procedure (NGT- group) and were compared to patients operated before this practice (NGT+ group), who had the NGT maintained until at least postoperative day 3. RESULTS: During the study period, 139 patients underwent PD, of whom 40 (29%) were in the NGT- group and 99 (71%) were in the NGT+ group. The length of hospital stay (LOS) and rate of postoperative complications of grade 2 or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system were significantly higher in the NGT+ group [14 (11-25) vs. 10 (8-14.2), P = 0.005 and 82.8 vs. 40%, P < 0.001, respectively]. Incidence and severity of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) grade B-C were also higher in the NGT+ group (45.5 vs. 7.5%, P < 0.001). There was no difference between the two groups concerning the 90-day postoperative mortality (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: The absence of systematic nasogastric decompression after PD might reduce postoperative complications, DGE, and LOS. These encouraging results deserve to be confirmed by a prospective randomized study (NCT: 02594956).
BACKGROUND: Since the spread of enhanced recovery programs, early withdrawal of the nasogastric tube (NGT) is recommended after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), although few data on the safety of this practice are available. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the absence of nasogastric decompression after PD on postoperative outcome. STUDY DESIGN: All consecutive patients undergoing PD between January 2014 and December 2015 at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Since May 2015, all operated patients had the NGT removed immediately after the procedure (NGT- group) and were compared to patients operated before this practice (NGT+ group), who had the NGT maintained until at least postoperative day 3. RESULTS: During the study period, 139 patients underwent PD, of whom 40 (29%) were in the NGT- group and 99 (71%) were in the NGT+ group. The length of hospital stay (LOS) and rate of postoperative complications of grade 2 or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system were significantly higher in the NGT+ group [14 (11-25) vs. 10 (8-14.2), P = 0.005 and 82.8 vs. 40%, P < 0.001, respectively]. Incidence and severity of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) grade B-C were also higher in the NGT+ group (45.5 vs. 7.5%, P < 0.001). There was no difference between the two groups concerning the 90-day postoperative mortality (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: The absence of systematic nasogastric decompression after PD might reduce postoperative complications, DGE, and LOS. These encouraging results deserve to be confirmed by a prospective randomized study (NCT: 02594956).
Authors: Mena M Hanna; Leonardo Tamariz; Rahul Gadde; Casey Allen; Danny Sleeman; Alan Livingstone; Danny Yakoub Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2015-12-13 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: N Tjarda van Heek; Koert F D Kuhlmann; Rob J Scholten; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Huug Obertop; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kristoffer Lassen; Marielle M E Coolsen; Karem Slim; Francesco Carli; José E de Aguilar-Nascimento; Markus Schäfer; Rowan W Parks; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo; Nicolas Demartines; Marco Braga; Olle Ljungqvist; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: David Yu Greenblatt; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Victoria Rajamanickam; Yin Wan; Todd Hanson; Robert Rettammel; Emily R Winslow; Clifford S Cho; Sharon M Weber Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-02-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John W Kunstman; Nicholas D Klemen; Annabelle L Fonseca; Deborah L Araya; Ronald R Salem Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Thilo Hackert; Pascal Probst; Phillip Knebel; Colette Doerr-Harim; Thomas Bruckner; Ulla Klaiber; Jens Werner; Lutz Schneider; Christoph W Michalski; Oliver Strobel; Alexis Ulrich; Markus K Diener; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Khaled Ammar; Chris Varghese; Thejasvin K; Viswakumar Prabakaran; Stuart Robinson; Samir Pathak; Bobby V M Dasari; Sanjay Pandanaboyana Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-11-09