1.
Cure and prevention strategy for postoperative gastrointestinal fistula after esophageal and gastric cardiac cancer surgery.
Han, Y, Zhao, H, Xu, H, Liu, S, Li, L, Jiang, C, Yang, B
Hepato-gastroenterology. 2014;(133):1253-6
Abstract
Gastrointestinal fistula is the most serious complication of esophageal and gastric cardiac cancer surgery. According to occurrence of organ, gastrointestinal fistula can be divided into anastomotic fistula, gastric fistula; According to occurrence site, fistula can be divided into cervical fistula, thoracic fistula; According to time of occurrence, can be divided into early, middle and late fistula. There are special types of fistula including ‘thoracic cavity’-stomach-bronchial fistula, ‘thoracic cavity’-stomach-aortic fistula. Early diagnosis needs familiarity with various types of clinical gastrointestinal fistulas. However, Prevention of gastrointestinal fistula is better than cure, including perioperative nutritional support, respiratory tract management, and acid suppression, positive treatment of complications, antibiotic prophylaxis, and gastrointestinal decompression and eating timing. Prevention can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal fistula. Collectively, early diagnosis and treatment, nutritional supports are key to reducing mortality of gastrointestinal fistula.
2.
The necessity of indwelling gastrointestinal decompression after gastrectomy: a meta-analysis.
Ding, J, Liao, G, Xia, Y, Zhang, ZM, Pan, Y, Liu, S, Yan, ZS
The Journal of surgical research. 2013;(1):e71-81
Abstract
BACKGROUND This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the necessity of indwelling gastrointestinal decompression after gastrectomy. METHODS Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared individuals with or without gastrointestinal decompression after gastrectomy, and a meta-analysis was performed on data regarding the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, length of hospital stay, complications, and mortality using fixed effect and random effect models. RESULTS Eight randomized controlled trials that had enrolled 975 patients were included in the present study. The difference in the interval to oral intake (weighted mean difference 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.96, P = 0.006) between the decompression group and nondecompression group was significant, but no significant differences were found in the interval to flatus (weighted mean difference 0.24, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.61, P = 0.20) or length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference 1.04, 95% CI -0.05 to 2.14, P = 0.06). Additionally, no significant differences were found in complications, including nausea or vomiting (odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% CI 0.57-2.65, P = 0.59), fever (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.96-2.51, P = 0.07), pulmonary complications (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.82-2.43, P = 0.22), anastomotic leakage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55-2.40, P = 0.70), paralytic ileus or small bowel obstruction (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.57-5.70, P = 0.32), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50-2.34, P = 0.84), wound infection (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.56-2.96, P = 0.55), or wound dehiscence (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43-4.95, P = 0.54) between the two groups. A sensitivity analysis of the pooled data from high-quality studies and studies with >20 cases per group showed that the length of hospital stay was prolonged significantly in the decompression group compared with the nondecompression group. CONCLUSIONS Routine gastrointestinal decompression after gastrectomy does not promote the recovery of gastrointestinal function or reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. In our series, decompression was correlated with a prolonged interval to oral intake, a longer duration of hospitalization, and increased patient discomfort.
3.
Meta-analysis of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer.
Ding, J, Liao, GQ, Liu, HL, Liu, S, Tang, J
Journal of surgical oncology. 2012;(3):297-303
Abstract
BACKGROUND To assess the value of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 dissection for treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS We collected studies that have compared laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 dissection for treatment of gastric cancer in the past 15 years. Data of interest for LADG and ODG were subjected to meta-analysis using a fixed-effect and random-effect model. RESULTS We analyzed 8 studies that included 1,065 patients. There were significant differences in operating time, blood loss, time to first flatus and first eating, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the LADG and ODG groups. Compared with the ODG group, blood loss and complications in the LADG group decreased, time to recovery of gastrointestinal function and hospitalization period were shorter, but operating time was longer. There were no significant differences in the number of harvested lymph nodes, mortality, and rate of recurrence between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Compared with ODG, LADG with D2 dissection has the advantages of minimal invasion, faster recovery, and fewer complications, and it can achieve the same degree of radicality and short-term prognosis as ODG. The drawbacks are that the operating time is slightly longer and long-term prognosis is not clear.