Is nasogastric or nasojejunal decompression necessary following gastrectomy for gastric cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Effectiveness of nasogastric tube decompression in mitigating delayed bleeding following endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nasogastric tube decompression (NGTD) has been a standard practice following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancers (EGCs) in clinical settings for several years. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of research assessing the efficacy of NGTD in preventing delayed bleeding after ESD.

METHODS

From January 2021 to December 2022, eligible patients who underwent gastric ESD for EGCs were categorized into two groups: NGTD group and no NGTD group. A retrospective Propensity Score Matching (PSM) study was performed to analyzed the data.

RESULTS

The delayed bleeding rate did not exhibit a significant decrease in the NGTD group, when compared with the no NGTD group. In the multivariate analysis, the size of the resected lesion emerged as the sole predictive factor for delayed bleeding after ESD, as opposed to the use of NGTD. Moreover, our findings revealed that hospital stay and costs were higher in the NGTD group. (8 days vs 7 days, p = 0.033, 3348.19$ vs 2840.28$, p = 0.00, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The utilization of NGTD showed no significant impact on delayed bleeding after ESD for EGCs and was correlated with hospital stay and costs. Therefore, the routine application of NGTD following ESD for EGCs may not be deemed necessary.

Application of ERAS in older patients with gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in older gastric cancer (GC) patients by observing the changes in postoperative intestinal function recovery, nutritional indicators, and inflammatory markers following the surgery.

METHODS

A total of 61 older GC patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy were selected as the subjects of this study. They were divided into an ERAS group (n = 28) and a conventional control group (n = 33) based on the different management modes during the perioperative period. General data, inflammatory response indicators, nutritional indicators, and perioperative indicators of the 2 groups were collected and compared. The changes in relevant indicators were analyzed, and the underlying reasons for these changes were explored.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in general data and preoperative indicators between the 2 groups (P > .05). In the ERAS group, the inflammatory markers decreased more rapidly, and the nutritional indicators recovered more quickly after surgery. The differences between the 2 groups were statistically significant on the 5th and 7th postoperative days (P < .05). The ERAS group had significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.07 ± 1.41 vs 13.04 ± 3.81), shorter time to first flatus (3.70 ± 0.72 vs 4.18 ± 1.17), shorter drainage tube retention time (8.96 ± 1.53 vs 10.93 ± 3.36), and shorter nasogastric tube retention time (3.36 ± 1.72 vs 6.14 ± 3.99) compared to the control group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The application of the ERAS program in older GC patients is effective and feasible, and significantly contributes to faster postoperative recovery in older patients.

Routine decompression by nasogastric tube after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To evaluate the effects of routine nasogastric decompression as compared to no nasogastric decompression after oesophagectomy. In the case of routine decompression, we will also aim to assess the effects of early versus late removal of the nasogastric tube.

State of the art of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagogastric cancer surgery: the Western experience

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve outcomes. The results of this multimodal and multidisciplinary approach based on actions focused on reducing physiological surgical stress in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods are beneficial in reducing morbidity and hospital stay, without increasing readmissions across different surgical settings. The implementation of ERAS in resection procedures of esophageal and gastric cancer has been challenging due to the complexity of these surgical techniques and the high risk of complications. Despite the limited evidence of ERAS in esophagectomy operations, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have confirmed a reduction of pulmonary complications and hospital stay without increasing readmissions. In gastrectomy operations, the implementation of ERAS reduces the use of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, facilitates early diet, and reduces the length of hospital stay, without increasing complications. There is, however, wide heterogeneity and absence of standardization in the number and definition of the ERAS components. The development of ERAS consensus guidelines including procedure-specific components may reduce this variability. Regardless growing evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS, the adherence rate is still low. The commitment of the multidisciplinary team and leadership is critical in the application and refinement of ERAS protocols in parallel with periodic audits. Pre- and post-habilitation methods are emerging concepts to be incorporated in ERAS protocols.

Effect of Short-Term Preoperative Parenteral Nutrition Support for Gastric Cancer Patients with Sarcopenia: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sarcopenia is well recognized as an unfavorable prognostic marker for gastric cancer (GC) patients. Currently, few nutritional interventions-such as parenteral nutrition-exist for the treatment of patients with sarcopenia. This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness of short-term preoperative parenteral nutrition (PN) in GC patients with sarcopenia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected data on GC patients with sarcopenia who underwent radical gastrectomy at our hospital from 2010 to 2018. A 1:1 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to establish the PN and control groups. Data were analyzed using the chi-squared, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

In total, 428 patients met the inclusion criteria, and the propensity scores identified 166 matched pairs of patients with sarcopenia. The overall incidence of postoperative complications between both groups was not significantly different (P = 0.728). The PN group had a lower rate of intra-abdominal infection (P = 0.032) and higher hospitalization costs (P < 0.001) than the control group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age, Charlson score, and TNM stage were independent risk factors for postoperative complications. Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that short-term preoperative PN support is associated with decreased postoperative surgical complications in patients with albumin levels < 35 g/L (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Short-term preoperative PN support is not associated with reduction of overall complication rate in patients with GC and sarcopenia. However, those with sarcopenia and hypoalbuminemia benefited from preoperative PN support.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus standard recovery for gastric cancer patients: The evidences and the issues

The significant advances that have been reached, in the last decades, in the treatment of gastric cancer, contributed to the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with the aim to reduce the surgical stress, accelerate postoperative recovery, and reduce the length of hospital stay. The most important items included in the ERAS protocols are the pre-operative patient education, early mobilization and immediate oral intake from the first postoperative day. The aim of this narrative review is to focus the attention on the possible advantages of ERAS program on perioperative functional recovery outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Perioperative care in open aortic vascular surgery: A Consensus Statement by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society and Society for Vascular Surgery

The Society for Vascular Surgery and the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society formally collaborated and elected an international, multi-disciplinary panel of experts to review the literature and provide evidence-based recommendations related to all of the health care received in the perioperative period for patients undergoing open abdominal aortic operations (both transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches, including supraceliac, suprarenal, and infrarenal clamp sites, for aortic aneurysm and aortoiliac occlusive disease). Structured around the ERAS® core elements, 36 recommendations were made and organized into preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative recommendations.

Impact of routine nasogastric decompression versus no nasogastric decompression after pancreaticoduodenectomy on perioperative outcomes: meta-analysis

Background

Consensus on the use of nasogastric decompression (NGD) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is lacking. This meta-analysis reviewed current evidence on the impact of routine NGD versus no NGD after PD on perioperative outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting on the role of NGD after PD on perioperative outcomes. Data up to January 2021were retrieved and analysed.

Results

Eight studies were included, with a total of 1301 patients enrolled, of whom 668 had routine NGD. Routine NGD was associated with a higher incidence of overall delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95 per cent c.i. 1.12 to 5.63, I² = 83 per cent; P = 0.03) and clinically relevant DGE (OR 3.64, 95 per cent c.i. 1.83 to 7.25, I² = 54 per cent; P < 0.01), a higher rate of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher complications (OR 3.12, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 9.28, I² = 88 per cent; P = 0.04) and increased length of hospital stay (mean difference 2.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.60 to 4.75, I² = 97 per cent; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in overall complications (OR 1.07, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 1.46, I² = 0 per cent; P = 0.66) or postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.21, 95 per cent c.i. 0.86 to 1.72, I² = 0 per cent; P = 0.28) between patients with or those without routine NGD.

Conclusion

Routine NGD was associated with increased rates of DGE, major complications and longer length of stay after PD.

Omitting nasogastric tube placement after gastrectomy does not enhance postoperative recovery: a propensity score matched analysis

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has become the main trend in gastrointestinal surgery. This study aims to investigate factors influencing the decision-making of nasogastric tube (NGT) placement and its safety and efficacy after gastrectomy.

METHODS

We analyzed our prospectively maintained database including 287 patients who underwent elective gastrectomy in our department from January 1 to December 31, 2017. All cases were divided into two groups, namely, the no-NGT group and the NGT group. Logistic regression was used to analyze factors that affected the decision of NGT placement, and propensity score matching (PSM) was later applied to balance those factors for the analysis of safety outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed resection range (p = 0.004, proximal gastrectomy: OR = 4.555, 95%CI = 1.392-14.905, p = 0.016; total gastrectomy: OR = 1.990, 95%CI = 1.205-3.287, p = 0.009) was the only independent risk factor of NGT placement. NGT was omitted in the majority (58.8%) of distal gastrectomy but only in 42.5% and 25% in total and proximal gastrectomy. After PSM, we found no significant differences between patients with or without NGT in postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus and defecation, time to fluid and semi-fluid diet, rate of reinsertion, or hospitalization expenditure (p > 0.05, respectively). The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups were 21.7% and 23.5%, respectively (p = 0.753), and the incidence of major complications was 7.0% and 9.6% (p = 0.472).

CONCLUSION

The decision-making of NGT placement is mainly influenced by the resection range. Omitting NGT is a safe approach in all types of gastrectomy but was not able to enhance the recovery in our practice.

Protocol for enhanced recovery after surgery with 3D laparoscopic excision for choledochal cysts can benefit the recovery process

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical value of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with laparoscopic choledochal cyst (CDC) excision in children.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on the clinical data from 33 in-patients whose final diagnosis was CDC. We included 18 patients who underwent the traditional treatment for CDC from April 2017 to October 2017 as the control group and 15 patients who underwent the enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) from November 2017 to May 2018 as the ERAS group. All the patients had received three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy by the same group of pediatric surgeons. The time of initial water intake, postoperative time to total enteral nutrition (TEN), postoperative hospital stay, total cost in hospital, postoperative complications, and readmission rate within 30 days were analysed.

RESULTS

The postoperative time of initial water intake, postoperative time to TEN, postoperative hospital stay, and total cost in hospital were (21.5 ± 2.1) h, (4.3 ± 0.5) days, (5.3 ± 0.6) days, and (35,945.49 ± 6071.46) China Yuan (CNY) in the ERAS group and (44.1 ± 3.5) h, (7.7 ± 2) days, (9.1 ± 2.5) days, and (45,609.08 ± 11,439.80) CNY in the control group, respectively. These values in the ERAS group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications. No readmission patient within 30 days was encountered in either of the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced recovery protocols can shorten postoperative hospital stay, relieve perioperative discomfort, lighten the financial burden, and result in substantial improvements.

Efficacy of gastric decompression after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Gastric decompression after pancreatic surgery has been a routine procedure for many years. However, this procedure has often been waived in non-pancreatic abdominal surgeries. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the necessity of routine gastric decompression (RGD) following pancreatic surgery.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify relevant studies comparing outcomes of RGD and no gastric decompression (NGD) after pancreatic surgery. The overall complications, major complications, mortality, delayed gastric emptying (DGE); clinically relevant DGE (CR-DGE), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), secondary gastric decompression, and the length of hospital stay were evaluated.

Results

A total of six comparative studies with a total of 940 patients were included. There were no differences between RGD and NGD groups in terms of the overall complications (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 0.60–5.00; p = 0.31), major complications (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.00–4.91; p = 0.05), incidence of secondary gastric decompression (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.60–2.02; p = 0.61), incidence of overall DGE (OR = 2.74; 95% CI: 0.88–8.56; p = 0.08; I² = 88%), incidence of CR-POPF (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.76–2.15; p = 0.36), and incidence of POPF (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.81–2.14; p = 0.27). However, RGD was associated with a higher incidence of CR-DGE (OR = 5.45; 95% CI: 2.68–11.09; p < 0.001, I² = 35%), a higher rate of mortality (OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.05–2.24; p = 0.03; I² = 83%), and a longer length of hospital stay (WMD = 5.43, 95% CI: 0.30 to 10.56; p = 0.04; I² = 93%).

Conclusions

Routine gastric decompression in patients after pancreatic surgery was not associated with a better recovery, and may be unnecessary after pancreatic surgery.

Global updates in the treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Part 2: perioperative management, multimodal therapies, new technologies, standardization of the surgical treatment and educational aspects

Gastric cancer is the fifth malignancy and the third cause of cancer death worldwide, according to the global cancer statistics presented in 2018. Its definition and staging have been revised in the eight edition of the AJCC/TNM classification, which took effect in 2018. Novel molecular classifications for GC have been recently established and the process of translating these classifications into clinical practice is ongoing. The cornerstone of GC treatment is surgical, in a context of multimodal therapy. Surgical treatment is being standardized, and is evolving according to new anatomical concepts and to the recent technological developments. This is leading to a massive improvement in the use of mini-invasive techniques. Mini-invasive techniques aim to be equivalent to open surgery from an oncologic point of view, with better short-term outcomes. The persecution of better short-term outcomes also includes the optimization of the perioperative management, which is being implemented on large scale according to the enhanced recovery after surgery principles. In the era of precision medicine, multimodal treatment is also evolving. The long-time-awaited results of many trials investigating the role for preoperative and postoperative management have been published, changing the clinical practice. Novel investigations focused both on traditional chemotherapeutic regimens and targeted therapies are currently ongoing. Modern platforms increase the possibility for further standardization of the different treatments, promote the use of big data and open new possibilities for surgical learning. This systematic review in two parts assesses all the current updates in GC treatment.

Is routine nasogastric decompression after hepatic surgery necessary? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Currently the nasogastric tube (NGT) is routinely inserted in clinical after abdominal surgery for decompression in China, yet the practice varies between regions, the role of NGT for the patients after hepatic surgery remains unclear. Therefore, this present meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of NGT placement after hepatic surgery.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: PUBMED, EMBASE, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database (until Mar 30, 2019) were systematically searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of NGT and no NGT treatment after hepatic surgery were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects or fixed effect model according to the heterogeneity. Outcomes were presented as Mantel-Haenszel style odd ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1306 patients were eligible for inclusion. Compared with NGT treatment, the no NGT decompression could shorten the time to first defecation (MD -0.59; -0.79, -0.39), reduce the time to start diet (MD -0.46; -0.90, -0.03), and decrease the length of hospital stay (MD 0.48; -0.93, -0.03), but it could also increase the risk of NGT re-intubation (OR 6.8; 1.77, 26.72), no significant differences were detected on the first passage of flatus (MD -0.34; -0.86, 0.18), the incidence of nausea (OR 0.81; 0.40, 1.67), vomiting (OR 1.06; 0.19, 5.93), abdominal distention (OR 0.87; 0.60, 1.25).

CONCLUSION

Given that very limited information for some endpoints in this present meta-analysis, the routinely insertion of NGT after hepatic surgery is not justified, the no NGT decompression seems to be more beneficial to the prognosis of patients after hepatic surgery, more related studies on this issue are needed.

Current status of the "enhanced recovery after surgery" program in gastric cancer surgery

Since the late 1990s, perioperative care through the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [ESPEN]) program has spread. ERAS protocols aim to reduce surgical complications, improving postoperative outcomes and thereby saving resources by addressing various clinical elements through a multidisciplinary approach or based on evidence. In the field of gastric cancer, the philosophy of ERAS has gradually become accepted and, in 2014, consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy were published. These guidelines consist of "procedure-specific" guidelines and "general (not procedure-specific) enhanced recovery items." In this review, we focused on the procedure-specific guidelines and tried to update the contents of every element of the procedure-specific guidelines. The procedure-specific guidelines consist of the following eight elements: "Preoperative nutrition," "Preoperative oral pharmaconutrition," "Access (of gastrectomy)," "Wound catheters and transversus abdominis plane block," "Nasogastric/Nasojejunal decompression," "Perianastomotic drains," "Early postoperative diet and artificial nutrition," and "Audit." On reviewing papers supporting these elements, it was reconfirmed that the recommendations of the guidelines are pertinent and valid. Four meta-analyses concerning the evaluation of ERAS protocols for gastric cancer were included in this review. Every study showed that the ERAS protocol reduced the cost and duration of hospital stay without increasing surgical complication rates, suggesting that ERAS is effective for gastric cancer surgery. However, it cannot be said that ERAS has achieved full penetration in Japan because most evidence is established in Western countries. Future studies must focus on developing a new ERAS protocols appropriate to Japanese conditions of gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: Single-Center Experience

Background

Surgery remains the mainstay of gastric cancer treatment. It is, however, associated with a relatively high risk of perioperative complications. The use of laparoscopy and the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol allows clinicians to limit surgically induced trauma, thus improving recovery and reducing the number of complications. The aim of the study is to present clinical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy combined with the ERAS protocol.

Material/Methods

Fifty-three (21 female/32 male) patients who underwent elective laparoscopic total gastrectomy due to cancer were prospectively analyzed. Demographic and surgical parameters were assessed, as well as the compliance with ERAS protocol elements, length of hospital stay, number of complications, and readmissions.

Results

Mean operative time was 296.4±98.9 min, and mean blood loss was 293.3±213.8 mL. In 3 (5.7%) cases, conversion was required. Median length of hospital stay was 5 days. Compliance with ERAS protocol was 79.6±14.5%. Thirty (56.6%) patients tolerated an early oral diet well within 24 h postoperatively; in 48 (90.6%) patients, mobilization in the first 24 hours was successful. In 17 (32.1%) patients, postoperative complications occurred, with 7 of them (13.2%) being serious (Clavien-Dindo 3-5). The 30-day readmission rate was 9.4%.

Conclusions

The combination of laparoscopy and the ERAS protocol in patients with gastric cancer is feasible and allows achieving good clinical outcomes.