Search

Background: Over 1500 patients with oesophageal cancer undergo a resection in the UK each year. At surgery, patients commonly have a nasogastric tube (NGT) placed and may undergo a pyloric intervention. There is conflicting evidence on the use of both NGTs and pyloric interventions during oesophageal resections. We performed a national survey of oesophageal centres and assessed practice variation.Material and methods: An electronic survey was distributed to all resection centres in England, Wales and Scotland. Variations in practice regarding NGTs and pyloric intervention were assessed, and compared to nationally reported centre volumes and length-of-stay data.Results: Most centres (31/39, 79%) responded to the survey. All centres reported routine NGT use. The majority of centres (19/31, 61%) did not perform pyloric interventions. When used, surgical pyloroplasty was the most frequent strategy (8/31, 26%). Routine post-operative radiological assessment was utilised in 9/31 (29%) of centres. Criteria for NGT removal and dietary progression was highly variable, with every centre reporting different protocols. There were no significant differences in practice between high and low volume centres. There were also no trends seen when comparing centres above vs at-or-below the median length-of-stay. The majority (68%) of centres were willing to take part in a trial assessing NGT use and pyloric interventions.Conclusions: Pyloric intervention use varies widely, with no clear link to outcomes. NGT use remains standard practice despite evidence for safe omission. Surgeons require and recognise the need for a trial to assess requirement for NGTs and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection.

Summary Background Modern enhanced recovery protocols discourage drain use due to negative impacts on patient comfort, mobility, and recovery, and lack of proven clinical benefit. After oesophagectomy, however, drains are still routinely placed. This review aimed to assess the evidence for, and how best to use chest drains after oesophageal surgery. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane collaboration databases. Studies reporting outcomes for different types or uses of thoracic drainage, or outcomes related to drains after trans-thoracic oesophagectomy were included. Studies were collated into domains based on variations in number, position, type, removal criteria, diagnostic use and complications of drains. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scores. Results Among 434 potentially relevant studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and these included 2564 patients. Studies that examined the number of drains showed pain reduction with a single drain compared to multiple drains (3 studies, n = 103), and transhiatal placement compared to intercostal (6 studies, n = 425). Amylase levels may aid diagnosis of anastomotic leak (9 studies, n = 888). Narrow calibre Blake drains may effectively drain both air and fluid (2 studies, n = 163). Drain removal criteria by daily drainage volumes of up to 300 mL did not impact subsequent effusion rates (2 studies, n = 130). Complications related directly to drains were reported by 3 studies (n = 59). Conclusion Available evidence on the impact of thoracic drainage after oesophagectomy is limited, but has the potential to negatively affect outcomes. Further research is required to determine optimum drainage strategies.