Intraoperative pyloric drainage is unnecessary during esophagectomies: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Objective: The topic of this meta-analysis is the comparison of gastric conduit esophageal reconstructions with or without pyloroplasty. Background: Surgical procedures, especially minimal invasive esophagectomy (MIE) can be a curative treatment in the early stages of esophageal cancer. Previously, intraoperative pyloroplasty was routinely performed, but nowadays it became debated again in the light of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in multiple databases to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the topic. Two independent authors performed the selection based on predefined criteria. Statistical analysis was performed to assess any significant difference, then the bias and quality of the data were estimated. Results: Nine relevant RCTs consisting of 529 patients with esophageal cancer were identified. No significance was found in mortality [odds ratio (OR): 0.85; p = 0.642], anastomosis leakage (OR: 0.57; p = 0.254), respiratory morbidity (OR: 0.51; p = 0.214) and vomiting (OR: 0.74; p = 0.520), however the results about gastric emptying time (GET) were controversial (weighted mean difference (WMD): -67.71; p = 0.009, OR: 2.75; p = 0.072). Significant heterogeneity was not detected except for GET. Trial sequential analyses (TSA) show that a certain conclusion would require more data except in the binary variables of GET. Conclusion: We conclude that the pyloric drainage procedure is not routinely necessary, but further well-designed studies would be needed, especially in Europe.

Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis.

Background: There were more than 1 million new cases of stomach cancer concerning oesophageal cancer, there were more than 600,000 new cases of oesophageal cancer in 2020. After a successful resection in these cases, the role of early oral feeding (EOF) was questionable, due to the possibility of fatal anastomosis leakage. It is still debated whether EOF is more advantageous compared to late oral feeding. Our study aimed to compare the effect of early postoperative oral feeding and late oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal resections due to malignancy. Methods: Two authors performed an extensive search and selection of articles independently to identify randomized control trials (RCT) of the question of interest. Statistical analyses were performed including mean difference, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, statistical heterogeneity, and statistical publication bias, to identify potential significant differences. The Risk of Bias and the quality of evidence were estimated. Results: We identified 6 relevant RCTs, which included 703 patients. The appearance of the first gas (MD = -1.16; p = 0.009), first defecation (MD = -0.91; p < 0.001), and the length of hospitalization (MD = -1.92; p = 0.008) favored the EOF group. Numerous binary outcomes were defined, but significant difference was not verified in the case of anastomosis insufficiency (p = 0.98), pneumonia (p = 0.88), wound infection (p = 0.48), bleeding (p = 0.52), rehospitalization (p = 0.23), rehospitalization to the intensive care unit (ICU) (p = 0.46), gastrointestinal paresis (p = 0.66), ascites (p = 0.45). Conclusion: Early postoperative oral feeding, compared to late oral feeding has no risk of several possible postoperative morbidities after upper GI surgeries, but has several advantageous effects on a patient's recovery. Systematic Review Registration: identifier, CRD 42022302594.