Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Primary Surgery for Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction: Postoperative Nasogastric Tube Reinsertion is Not Mandatory

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Malignant large bowel obstructions frequently require emergency surgery. Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery programmes is significantly reduced due to non-removal of the nasogastric tube in the postoperative period. The first aim of the present study was to research factors associated with the failure of immediate nasogastric tube removal in patients who had undergone emergency surgery for malignant large bowel obstruction. The second aim was to assess the morbidity linked to nasogastric tube reinsertion.

Methods

This retrospective and monocentric study included all consecutive patients admitted for acute malignant large bowel obstruction who underwent emergency surgery. Patients who were not primarily operated on were excluded (n = 178; 69.3%). The group of patients requiring nasogastric tube (NGT) reinsertion was compared with the group that did not require NGT reinsertion.

Results

Seventy-nine patients underwent emergency surgery, of which 18 (22.8%) required nasogastric tube reinsertion. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to (a) immediate nasogastric tube removal (p = 0.87) and (b) inclusion in an enhanced recovery programme (p = 0.75). However, preoperative small bowel dilatation was associated with a reduction in the need for NGT reinsertion (p = 0.04). A left-sided tumour was also associated with the need for NGT reinsertion in uni- (p = 0.034) and multivariate analysis (OR = 8; p < 0.05). Surgical access and procedure were not significantly associated with NGT reinsertion. The postoperative course influenced NGT reinsertion, which was significantly associated with postoperative ileus (OR = 4; p < 0.05) and postoperative morbidity (OR = 4; p < 0.05). Morbidity was not linked to nasogastric tube removal.

Conclusion

Nasogastric tube reinsertion was not affected by immediate removal of the tube. Left-sided tumours and patients at risk of postoperative ileus should be managed with caution. Immediate nasogastric tube removal is not contraindicated in the case of large bowel obstruction because it is not associated with a higher risk of NGT reinsertion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ménégoz F, Black RJ, Arveux P, Magne V, Ferlay J, Buémi A et al (1997) Cancer incidence and mortality in France in 1975–95. Eur J Cancer Prev 6:442–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jooste V, Remontet L, Colonna M, Belot A, Launoy G, Binder F et al (2011) (2010) Trends in the incidence of digestive cancers in France between 1980 and 2005 and projections for the year. Eur J Cancer Prev 20:375–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kye BH, Lee YS, Cho HM, Kim JG, Oh ST, Lee IK, et al. (2016) Comparison of long-term outcomes between emergency surgery and bridge to surgery for malignant obstruction in right-sided colon cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1866–1874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Otsuka S, Kaneoka Y, Maeda A, Takayama Y, Fukami Y, Isogai M (2015) One-stage colectomy with intraoperative colonic irrigation for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. World J Surg 39:2336–2342. doi:10.1007/s00268-015-3078-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, Zhang XD, Chen BC, Yu Z (2013) Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 56:667–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lohsiriwat V (2014) Enhanced recovery after surgery vs conventional care in emergency colorectal surgery. World J Gastroenterol 14(20):13950–13955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Roulin D, Blanc C, Muradbegovic M, Hahnloser D, Demartines N, Hübner M (2014) Enhanced recovery pathway for urgent colectomy. World J Surg 38:2153–2159. doi:10.1007/s00268-014-2518-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nelson R, Edwards S, Tse B (2007) Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 28(3):CD004929

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rao W, Zhang X, Zhang J, Yan R, Hu Z, Wang Q (2011) The role of nasogastric tube in decompression after elective colon and rectum surgery: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:423–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vather R, Trivedi S, Bissett I (2013) Defining postoperative ileus: results of a systematic review and global survey. J Gastrointest Surg 17:962–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Moolla Z, Madiba TE (2014) Trends in demographics and management of obstructing colorectal cancer. World J Surg 38:2466–2470. doi:10.1007/s00268-014-2595-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Branger F, Thibaudeau E, Mucci-Hennekinne S, Métivier-Cesbron E, Vychnevskaia K, Hamy A et al (2010) Management of acute malignant large-bowel obstruction with self-expanding metal stent. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:1481–1485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maruthachalam K, Lash GE, Shenton BK, Horgan AF (2007) Tumour cell dissemination following endoscopic stent insertion. Br J Surg 94:1151–1154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Matsuda A, Miyashita M, Matsumoto S, Matsutani T, Sakurazawa N, Takahashi G et al (2015) Comparison of long-term outcomes of colonic stent as “bridge to surgery” and emergency surgery for malignant large-bowel obstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 22:497–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chapuis PH, Bokey L, Keshava A, Rickard MJFX, Stewart P, Young CJ et al (2013) Risk factors for prolonged ileus after resection of colorectal cancer: an observational study of 2400 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 257:909–915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Millan M, Biondo S, Fraccalvieri D, Frago R, Golda T, Kreisler E (2012) Risk factors for prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal cancer surgery. World J Surg 36:179–185. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1339-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vather R, Josephson R, Jaung R, Robertson J, Bissett I (2015) Development of a risk stratification system for the occurrence of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery: a prospective risk factor analysis. Surgery 157:764–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Bree SHW, Bemelman WA, Hollmann MW, Zwinderman AH, Matteoli G, El Temna S et al (2014) Identification of clinical outcome measures for recovery of gastrointestinal motility in postoperative ileus. Ann Surg 259:708–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hwang GS, Hanna MH, Phelan M, Carmichael JC, Mills S, et al. (2016) Risk factors for prolonged ileus following colon surgery. Surg Endosc 30:603–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bragg D, El-Sharkawy AM, Psaltis E, Maxwell-Armstrong CA, Lobo DN (2015) Postoperative ileus: recent developments in pathophysiology and management. Clin Nutr 34:367–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tevis SE, Carchman EH, Foley EF, Harms BA, Heise CP, Kennedy GD (2015) Postoperative ileus-more than just prolonged length of Stay? J Gastrointest Surg 19:1684–1690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Visceral Surgery, CHU Angers, University Hospital of Angers, 4, Rue Larrey, 49933, Angers Cedex 9, France

    A. Venara, J. Barbieux, P. A. Colas, A. Le Fouler, E. Lermite & A. Hamy

  2. L’UNAM University of Angers, Angers, France

    A. Venara, J. Barbieux, P. A. Colas, A. Le Fouler, E. Lermite & A. Hamy

  3. UMR INSERM 1235, TENS - the enteric nervous system in gut and brain disorders, University of Nantes, 1 rue Gaston Veil, Nantes, France

    A. Venara

Authors
  1. A. Venara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Barbieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. A. Colas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Le Fouler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Lermite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Hamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Venara.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venara, A., Barbieux, J., Colas, P.A. et al. Primary Surgery for Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction: Postoperative Nasogastric Tube Reinsertion is Not Mandatory. World J Surg 41, 1903–1909 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3949-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3949-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation