Systematic review of nasogastric or nasojejunal decompression after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Adherence to Guidelines for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment for Gastric Cancer in Italy According to the View of Surgeons and Patients

Background: Despite the strong declining trends in incidence and mortality over the last decades, gastric cancer (GC) is still burdened with high mortality, even in high-income countries. To improve GC prognosis, several guidelines have been increasingly published with indications about the most appropriate GC management. The Italian Society of Digestive System Pathology (SIPAD) and Gastric Cancer Italian Research Group (GIRCG) designed a survey for both surgeons and patients with the purpose of evaluating the degree of application and adherence to guidelines in GC management in Italy. Materials and Methods: Between January and May 2022, a questionnaire has been administered to a sample of Italian surgeons and, in a simplified version, to members of the Patient Association "Vivere Senza Stomaco" (patients surgically treated for GC between 2008 and 2021) to investigate the diagnosis, staging, and treatment issues. Results: The survey has been completed by 125 surgeons and 125 patients. Abdominal CT with gastric hydro-distension before treatment was not widespread in both groups (47% and 42%, respectively). The rate of surgeons stating that they do not usually perform minimally invasive gastrectomy was 15%, but the rate of patients who underwent a minimally invasive approach was 22% (between 2011 and 2022). The percentage of surgeons declaring to perform extended lymphadenectomy (>D2) was 97%, although a limited lymph node dissection rate was observed in about 35% of patients. Conclusions: This survey shows several important discrepancies from surgical attitudes declared by surgeons and real data derived from the reports available to the patients, suggesting heterogeneous management in clinical practice and, thus, a not rigorous adherence to the guidelines.

Postoperative recovery after suspension suture placement at the site of esophagojejunal anastomosis after total gastrectomy: Comparison of two surgical techniques

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements, survival rates for gastric cancer remain low, even in developed countries, confirming the role of primary and secondary prevention.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to demonstrate the role of additional suspension sutures on the esophagojejunal anastomosis (EJA) to strengthen the anastomosis, i.e., relieve the mechanical suture.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2011 to 2022 at the Clinic for Surgery, University Clinical Center Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The experimental group consisted of patients placed with a suspension suture at the esophagojejunal anastomosis (EJA) site after total gastrectomy. The control group was patients without a suspension suture. The clinical and laboratory parameters available from the medical history were analyzed, X-ray passage, surgical complications, non-surgical complications, the length of hospitalization, the postoperative course, time of onset of postoperative complications, postoperative radiological follow-up and endoscopic postoperative follow-up were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients were included in the study: 87 in the experimental group with suspension sutures on the EJA and 125 in the control group without suspension sutures on the EJA. The two cohorts did not differ in other clinicopathologic parameters except perineural invasion, which was more prevalent in the control group. Patients in both groups were anemic and elevated values of C reactive protein (CRP) and decreased levels of proteins, albumin and globulin, with no significant difference between the two groups. The most common general complication was pleural effusion (28%), followed by pneumonia (∼22%). The most common complication in the experimental group was an intraabdominal abscess, while in the control group, it was a surgical wound infection.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not show a statistically significant difference between the two analyzed EJA techniques created with a circular stapler, when it comes to postoperative course and outcome in patients with gastric cancer.

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.

Placement of Nasogastric Tubes in Pancreaticoduodenectomy Patients: Switching from Immediate Intraoperative Removal to Avoiding Unnecessary Perioperative Use

BACKGROUND

The placement of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in abdominal surgery has been adopted for decades to attenuate ileus and prevent aspiration pneumonia. In the recent era, the guidelines recommend not using NGT routinely, and even in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), immediate removal of NGT in operating rooms (ORs) was suggested. However, the clinical outcome and safety of abandoning NGT during the pre-PD and intra-PD periods remain unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective review on adult PD patients aged between 20 and 75 years from 2013 to 2022. The study population was grouped into the NGT group (NGT was placed before PD and immediately removed in the ORs) and the non-NGT group (NGT was not placed preoperatively). Safety was evaluated by the number of adverse events. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the need of NGT insertion in ORs among PD patients.

RESULTS

The case numbers in the NGT and non-NGT groups were 391 and 578, respectively. No case in the non-NGT group needed the intraoperative insertion of NGT. The rate of pulmonary complications was 2.3% in the NGT group compared to 1.6% in the non-NGT group (P = 0.400). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in terms of rates of major complications (12.8% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.089) or mortality (1.0% vs. 1.0%, P =0.980) between the two groups. The rates of the postoperative insertion of NGT in the NGT and non-NGT groups were 2.6% and 2.8% (P = 0.840), respectively.

CONCLUSION

For selected PD patients, the placement of NGT during pre-PD and intra-PD periods may be safely omitted. This primary study is considered the first foundation stone in the extension of the element of no NGT in PD.

Routine nasogastric tube placement in patients with small esophageal perforation after endoscopic foreign body removal may be unnecessary: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is part of the post-operative management of upper gastrointestinal perforation, but its routine use in esophageal perforation (EP) caused by foreign bodies remains unclear. The purpose of this research was to investigate the necessity for routine NGT placement in patients with EP after endoscopic foreign body removal.

Methods

A total of 323 patients diagnosed with EP caused by foreign bodies at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2012 and December 2021 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into the NGT group and the non-NGT group according to whether or not NGT placement was performed. The perforation healing rate, post-operative adverse events, hospital stay, and death rate were analysed using a 1:1 propensity score matching model.

Results

Before matching, there were 263 patients in the NGT group and 60 patients in the non-NGT group. There were significant differences in the time to treatment, infection, albumin, and types of endoscopy between the two groups, while the length of hospital stay in the NGT group was significantly longer than that in the non-NGT group. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 48 pairs of patients were matched between the two groups. The perforation healing rate, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, and death rate did not show significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusions

For patients with small EP caused by foreign bodies, routine NGT placement after endoscopic foreign body removal may be unnecessary.

Implementation of the ERAS program in gastric surgery: a nationwide survey in Italy

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been developed by combining several evidence-based techniques for perioperative care, with the intention of reducing the stress response and organ dysfunction, thus allowing improved clinical results. ERAS programs have been widely adopted for colorectal surgery; however, their adoption for upper gastrointestinal surgery has been challenging even though good results have been reported in the literature. Our intent was to investigate the adoption of ERAS programs for resective gastric surgery in Italy. A survey was conducted among 20 departments of surgery belonging to the Italian Group for Research on Gastric Cancer (GC). Analysis of our survey showed that several evidence-based practices and many items of the ERAS guidelines for gastric surgery are not implemented in real practice in Italian centers dedicated to GC. This situation may be related to the hesitation of surgeons to introduce radical changes to the traditional postoperative management after gastrectomy. A multidisciplinary approach to the perioperative care of these patients is not routinely applied in many Italian centers. A strict collaboration of all clinicians involved in the perioperative care of patients undergoing gastrectomy for GC is key for the future implementation of ERAS in gastric surgery in our departments.

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.

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.

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.

Postoperative Outcomes Within an Enhanced Recovery after surgery protocol in gastric surgery for cancer (POWER.4): Study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Enhanced recovery pathways or ERAS have been applied in gastric cancer surgery extrapolated from colorectal surgery. The objective of the study is to assess postoperative complications 30 days after gastric surgery for cancer, with any level of compliance with the ERAS protocol. The secondary objectives are to assess 30-day mortality, the relationship between adherence to the ERAS protocol and complications, the impact of each of the items of the protocol on postoperative complications and hospital stay, and to describe the impact of complications on length of hospital stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicenter, observational, prospective study including all consecutive patients undergoing scheduled gastric cancer surgery, over a period of 3 months, with a 30-day follow-up at participating centers, with any level of compliance with the protocol.

RESULTS

The approval of the Comité Autonómico de Ética de la Investigación de Aragón has been obtained (C.P. - C.I. PI19 / 106, 27 th March 2019). POWER.4 was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov on March 7, 2019 (NCT03865810).

CONCLUSIONS

The data as a whole will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The data will not be made public by identifying each participating center. It is expected that the results of this study will identify potential areas for improvement in which more targeted research is 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.

Efficacy of fast track surgery in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of efficacy and security of fast track surgery (FTS) in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Databases and supplemented by other searches to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of fast track surgery combined with laparoscopy versus laparoscopy separately used in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer before December 2016. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, meta-analysis was conducted by the Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 6 RCTs, involving 464 patients, were included. There were 232 patients in the FTS group and conventional care group separately. Compared with the conventional care group, patients of FTS group had shorter postoperative hospital stay [WMD = -1.85, 95%CI: (-2.60, -1.11), P < .00001], earlier first flatus [WMD = -9.33, 95%CI: (-13.74, -4.91), P < .0001], lower level of C-reactive protein (CRP) at postoperative day 4 [WMD = -13.94, 95%CI: (-22.74, -5.15), P = .002], and less hospitalization fees [SMD = -1.12, 95%CI: (-2.07, -0.18), P = .02]. There were no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, the FTS protocol is safe and effective in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Due to the limitations of our study, further larger and multicenter studies are needed to validate our findings.

Enhanced recovery after gastro-intestinal surgery: The scientific background

Enhanced recovery programs (ERP) are without any doubt a major innovation in the care of surgical patients. This multimodal approach encompasses elements of both medical and surgical care. The goal of this in-depth review is to analyze the surgical aspects of ERP, underlining the scientific rationale behind each element of ERP after surgery and in particular, the role of mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery, the place of minimal access surgery, the utility of nasogastric tube, abdominal drainage, bladder catheters and early re-feeding. Publication of factual data has allowed many dogmas to be discarded.

Non-ventilatory approaches to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications

This educational narrative review provides a summary of non-ventilatory strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). It highlights patient- and procedure-related risk factors for PPCs that are non-modifiable, potentially modifiable, or well modifiable. Non-ventilatory strategies, mainly based on the modification of risk factors, play a key role in reducing PPCs. Non-modifiable risk factors, most importantly age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and risk of the procedure, should be recognized and patients intensively screened for the potential to optimize other, potentially or well-modifiable, risk factors. Potentially modifiable risk factors, mainly comorbidities and the surgical approach, increase the risk of PPCs. Patient-related factors can be improved while procedure-related factors may be adapted in high-risk patients. Well-modifiable risk factors, mainly certain anesthesia techniques, for example, general anesthesia, intravenous opioids or liberal fluid management, and smoking or alcohol abuse, should be avoided as far as possible in order to prevent PPCs.

Gastric cancer surgery without nasogastric decompression

Nasogastric decompression (ND) has been used worldwide in gastric cancer surgery as a traditional way since Hunter pioneered. Most surgeons believe that using ND in abdominal surgery could relieve the internal pressure of anastomosis and reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, there has no strict scientific evidence for this obtained from medical studies, especially prospective studies. In recent years, several studies have shown that routine use of ND after surgery could not prevent anastomotic leakage or accelerate the recovery of bowel function, and surgery without ND did not increase the risk of anastomotic leakage. All kinds of gastric cancer surgery could be performed safely without ND, which greatly reduces the suffering of the patients, accelerates postoperative recovery, and reduces the workload significantly. If patients with pyloric obstruction or bleeding receive ND before surgery, nasogastric tube could be removed after they waked up. Gastric cancer surgery without ND is safe and deserves clinical popularization. This review summarizes the safety and significance of gastric cancer surgery without ND.