HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2011
Routine nasogastric suction may be unnecessary after a pancreatic resection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fisher William E, Hodges Sally E, Cruz Guillermina, Artinyan Avo, Silberfein Eric J, Ahern Charolette H, Jo Eunji, Brunicardi F Charles
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Most surgeons routinely place a nasogastric tube at the time of a pancreatic resection. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the outcome when a pancreatic resection is performed without routine post-operative nasogastric suction.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent a pancreatic resection (64 a pancreaticoduodenectomy, 98% pylorus sparing and 36 a distal pancreatectomy). In the first cohort (50 patients), a nasogastric tube was routinely placed at the time of surgery and in the second cohort (50 patients) the nasogastric was removed in the operating room. Outcomes for these two cohorts were recorded in a prospective database and compared using the χ(2) or Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.
RESULTS: Demographical, surgical and pathological details were similar between the two cohorts. A post-operative complication occurred in 22 (44%) in each group (P= 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency or severity of complications, or length of stay between groups. The spectrum of complications experienced by the two cohorts was similar including complications that could potentially be related to the use of nasogastric suction such as delayed gastric emptying, anastomotic leak, wound dehiscence and pneumonia. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients who required post-operative nasogastric tube placement (or replacement) [2 (4%) vs. 4 (8%), P= 0.678].
CONCLUSION: It may be safe to place a nasogastric tube post-operatively in a minority of patients after a pancreatic resection and spare the majority the discomfort associated with routine post-operative nasogastric suction.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent a pancreatic resection (64 a pancreaticoduodenectomy, 98% pylorus sparing and 36 a distal pancreatectomy). In the first cohort (50 patients), a nasogastric tube was routinely placed at the time of surgery and in the second cohort (50 patients) the nasogastric was removed in the operating room. Outcomes for these two cohorts were recorded in a prospective database and compared using the χ(2) or Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.
RESULTS: Demographical, surgical and pathological details were similar between the two cohorts. A post-operative complication occurred in 22 (44%) in each group (P= 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency or severity of complications, or length of stay between groups. The spectrum of complications experienced by the two cohorts was similar including complications that could potentially be related to the use of nasogastric suction such as delayed gastric emptying, anastomotic leak, wound dehiscence and pneumonia. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients who required post-operative nasogastric tube placement (or replacement) [2 (4%) vs. 4 (8%), P= 0.678].
CONCLUSION: It may be safe to place a nasogastric tube post-operatively in a minority of patients after a pancreatic resection and spare the majority the discomfort associated with routine post-operative nasogastric suction.