Applicability and results of the consensus definition of delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Petro Zgurskyi, Alex Ruiz Janje, Sophia Spiewok, Marius Kemper, Anas Preuschkas, Jakob Izbicki, Matthias Reeh, Felix Nickel, Thilo Hackert, Thilo Welsch
{"title":"Applicability and results of the consensus definition of delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy.","authors":"Petro Zgurskyi, Alex Ruiz Janje, Sophia Spiewok, Marius Kemper, Anas Preuschkas, Jakob Izbicki, Matthias Reeh, Felix Nickel, Thilo Hackert, Thilo Welsch","doi":"10.1007/s00423-026-04222-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) affects 15%-60% of patients after esophagectomy, depending on the definition used. This study evaluated DGCE incidence using the new consensus criteria and explored its clinical and scientific relevance. It also analyzed nasogastric tube (NGT) output to estimate a safe removal threshold.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective single-center cohort study included patients who underwent elective Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (2020-2024).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 160 patients were included. The majority of patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy (n = 65 [40.6%]), whereas open esophagectomy was performed in 38 patients (23.7%). Early DGCE was identified in 40.6% of patients, predominantly via NGT output (95.4%), with few cases diagnosed radiologically (4.6%). DGCE was associated with longer hospital stays (24 vs. 18 days, p = 0.034) and higher NGT reinsertion rates (47.0% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.02), but not with differences in surgical approach or major complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification > IIIa: 18.2% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.72). Late DGCE was diagnosed in only 8 patients (5.0%), mainly because of the low use of routine radiological imaging. In the cohort of patients who did not require NGT reinsertion, the median of the average nasogastric tube output for the 2 days before removal was 200 mL per day.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The consensus definition of DGCE is applicable and identifies a clinically relevant incidence of over 40%. An average daily NGT output of 200 mL appears to reliably predict safe tube removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"411 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13624049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-026-04222-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) affects 15%-60% of patients after esophagectomy, depending on the definition used. This study evaluated DGCE incidence using the new consensus criteria and explored its clinical and scientific relevance. It also analyzed nasogastric tube (NGT) output to estimate a safe removal threshold.

Methods: This retrospective single-center cohort study included patients who underwent elective Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (2020-2024).

Results: A total of 160 patients were included. The majority of patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy (n = 65 [40.6%]), whereas open esophagectomy was performed in 38 patients (23.7%). Early DGCE was identified in 40.6% of patients, predominantly via NGT output (95.4%), with few cases diagnosed radiologically (4.6%). DGCE was associated with longer hospital stays (24 vs. 18 days, p = 0.034) and higher NGT reinsertion rates (47.0% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.02), but not with differences in surgical approach or major complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification > IIIa: 18.2% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.72). Late DGCE was diagnosed in only 8 patients (5.0%), mainly because of the low use of routine radiological imaging. In the cohort of patients who did not require NGT reinsertion, the median of the average nasogastric tube output for the 2 days before removal was 200 mL per day.

Conclusions: The consensus definition of DGCE is applicable and identifies a clinically relevant incidence of over 40%. An average daily NGT output of 200 mL appears to reliably predict safe tube removal.

食管切除术后胃导管延迟排空的共识定义的适用性和结果。
目的:食管切除术后延迟胃导管排空(DGCE)影响15%-60%的患者,这取决于所使用的定义。本研究使用新的共识标准评估DGCE发生率,并探讨其临床和科学相关性。它还分析了鼻胃管(NGT)输出以估计安全移除阈值。方法:这项回顾性单中心队列研究纳入了接受选择性Ivor Lewis食管切除术的患者(2020-2024)。结果:共纳入160例患者。大多数患者接受了机器人辅助食管切除术(n = 65[40.6%]),而38例患者(23.7%)接受了开放式食管切除术。40.6%的患者发现早期DGCE,主要通过NGT输出(95.4%),很少有病例通过放射学诊断(4.6%)。DGCE与更长的住院时间(24天对18天,p = 0.034)和更高的NGT再插入率(47.0%对28.7%,p = 0.02)相关,但与手术入路或主要并发症无关(Clavien-Dindo分类> IIIa: 18.2%对13.8%,p = 0.72)。晚期DGCE仅确诊8例(5.0%),主要原因是常规影像学检查使用率低。在不需要重新插入NGT的患者队列中,取出前2天平均鼻胃管输出量的中位数为每天200 mL。结论:DGCE的共识定义是适用的,并确定临床相关发生率超过40%。平均每日200毫升的NGT输出似乎可以可靠地预测安全拔管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书