Skip to main content
Log in

Analysis of the Effect of Early Versus Conventional Nasogastric Tube Removal on Postoperative Complications After Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Original Scientific Report (including Papers Presented at Surgical Conferences)
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although esophagectomy is the only curative option for esophageal cancer, the associated invasiveness is high. Nasogastric (NG) tube use may prevent complications; however, its utility remains unclear, and the decompression period depends on the doctor. This study aimed to reveal the effect of conventional versus early NG tube removal on postoperative complications after esophagectomy.

Methods

This single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled patients aged 20–80 years with histologically proven primary esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eighty patients admitted for transthoracic first-stage esophagectomy reconstructed with gastric conduit were randomly assigned (1:1) to the conventional and early NG tube removal groups. In the conventional NG tube removal group, the tube was removed on postoperative day (POD) 7; in the other, it was removed on POD 1. The occurrence rate of major complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, and NG tube reinsertion rate were compared between the groups.

Results

The incidence of postoperative major complications such as pneumonia, anastomotic leakage, recurrent nerve palsy and gastrointestinal bleeding, and the NG tube reinsertion rate was not different between the groups. However, recurrent nerve palsy was more commonly observed in the conventional removal group; this difference was not significant. In terms of postoperative pneumonia, tumor location and field of lymph node dissection were significant risk factors.

Conclusion

Although early NG tube removal did not reduce the rate of postoperative pneumonia, it could be performed safely. Hence, the NG tube can be removed earlier than conventional methods.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Griffin SM, Shaw IH, Dresner SM (2002) Early complications after Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy: risk factors and management. J Am Coll Surg 194:285–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ando N, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y, Shinozawa Y, Kitajima M (2000) Improvement in the results of surgical treatment of advanced squamous esophageal carcinoma during 15 consecutive years. Ann Surg 232:225–232

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whooley BP, Law S, Murthy SC, Alexandrou A, Wong J (2001) Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 233:338–344

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sato T, Takayama T, So K, Murayama I (2007) Is retention of a nasogastric tube after esophagectomy a risk factor for postoperative respiratory tract infection? J Infect Chemother 13:109–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen NT, Slone J, Wooldridge J, Smith BR, Reavis KM, Hoyt D (2009) Minimally invasive esophagectomy without the use of postoperative nasogastric tube decompression. Am Surg 75:929–931

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daryaei P, Vaghef Davari F, Mir M, Harirchi I, Salmasian H (2009) Omission of nasogastric tube application in postoperative care of esophagectomy. World J Surg 33:773–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-9930-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shackcloth MJ, McCarron E, Kendall J, Russell GN, Pennefather SH, Tran J, Page RD (2006) Randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of nasogastric drainage on tracheal acid aspiration following oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 93:547–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mistry RC, Vijayabhaskar R, Karimundackal G, Jiwnani S, Pramesh CS (2012) Effect of short-term vs prolonged nasogastric decompression on major postesophagectomy complications: a parallel-group, randomized trial. Arch Surg 147:747–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaburagi T, Takeuchi H, Kawakubo H, Omori T, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y (2014) Clinical utility of a novel hybrid position combining the left lateral decubitus and prone positions during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. World J Surg 38:410–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2258-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Katayama H, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura K et al (2016) Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan clinical oncology group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today 46:668–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee JH, Hyung WJ, Noh SH (2002) Comparison of gastric cancer surgery with versus without nasogastric decompression. Yonsei Med J 43:451–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weijs TJ, Kumagai K, Berkelmans GH, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Nilsson M, Luyer MD (2017) Nasogastric decompression following esophagectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 30:1–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ichida H, Imamura H, Yoshimoto J, Sugo H, Ishizaki Y, Kawasaki S (2016) Randomized controlled trial for evaluation of the routine use of nasogastric tube decompression after elective liver surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1324–1330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shiozaki A, Fujiwara H, Okamura H et al (2012) Risk factors for postoperative respiratory complications following esophageal cancer resection. Oncol Lett 3:907–912

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S et al (2017) Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1821–1827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kumiko Motooka, who belongs to the staff at the Department of Surgery in Keio University School of Medicine, for her help in the preparation of this report.

Funding

This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hirofumi Kawakubo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayashi, M., Kawakubo, H., Shoji, Y. et al. Analysis of the Effect of Early Versus Conventional Nasogastric Tube Removal on Postoperative Complications After Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial. World J Surg 43, 580–589 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4825-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4825-1

Navigation