The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2010
Pharyngostomy tubes for gastric conduit decompression.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rueth Natasha M, Lee Natasha, Groth Shawn S, Stranberg Sarah C, Maddaus Michael A, D'Cunha Jonathan, Andrade Rafael S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This article illustrates our operative technique for pharyngostomy tube placement and describes our clinical experience with pharyngostomy use for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing pharyngostomy tube placement for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy from January 2008 to August 2009. Patients were included if they had a pharyngostomy tube placed at esophagectomy (prophylactic placement) or as a means of decompression after postesophagectomy anastomotic leak (therapeutic placement). We collected operative and clinical data and performed a descriptive statistical analysis.
RESULTS: We placed 25 pharyngostomy tubes for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy. Eleven were placed prophylactically (44%); the remaining 14 were placed therapeutically (56%) after anastomotic leak. Prophylactic pharyngostomy tubes remained in place a median of 8 days (range 4-17 days), whereas therapeutic pharyngostomy tubes were left in place a median of 15 days (range 7-125 days). There were 4 infectious complications (16%) unrelated to length of pharyngostomy use: 2 cases of cellulitis (resolved with antibiotics, tube remaining in place) and 2 superficial abscesses after tube removal requiring bedside débridement. Seventy-two percent of patients underwent swallow evaluation; 22% of these patients had radiographic evidence of aspiration.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngostomy tube placement for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy is simple, and tubes can stay in place for prolonged periods. Our experience suggests that pharyngostomy tubes are a safe alternative to nasogastric drainage.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing pharyngostomy tube placement for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy from January 2008 to August 2009. Patients were included if they had a pharyngostomy tube placed at esophagectomy (prophylactic placement) or as a means of decompression after postesophagectomy anastomotic leak (therapeutic placement). We collected operative and clinical data and performed a descriptive statistical analysis.
RESULTS: We placed 25 pharyngostomy tubes for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy. Eleven were placed prophylactically (44%); the remaining 14 were placed therapeutically (56%) after anastomotic leak. Prophylactic pharyngostomy tubes remained in place a median of 8 days (range 4-17 days), whereas therapeutic pharyngostomy tubes were left in place a median of 15 days (range 7-125 days). There were 4 infectious complications (16%) unrelated to length of pharyngostomy use: 2 cases of cellulitis (resolved with antibiotics, tube remaining in place) and 2 superficial abscesses after tube removal requiring bedside débridement. Seventy-two percent of patients underwent swallow evaluation; 22% of these patients had radiographic evidence of aspiration.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngostomy tube placement for gastric conduit decompression after esophagectomy is simple, and tubes can stay in place for prolonged periods. Our experience suggests that pharyngostomy tubes are a safe alternative to nasogastric drainage.