Are intra-operative gastric drainage procedures necessary in esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Surgical pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy are often performed during esophagectomy with a view of improving gastric conduit drainage. However, the clinical importance of this is not clear, and some centers opt to omit this step. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the rates of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, mortality, delayed gastric emptying, and the need for further pyloric intervention, in patients undergoing esophagectomy with and without a drainage procedure. METHODS: A database search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify randomized control trials and cohort studies published between 2000 and 2020 which compared outcomes of esophagectomy with and without drainage procedures. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to compare the rates of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, mortality, delayed gastric emptying, and the need for further pyloric intervention. RESULTS: Three randomized and 12 non-randomized publications were identified, comprising a total of 2339 patients. No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to pulmonary complications (RR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.78-1.33], p = 0.91), anastomotic leak (RR 1.14 [95% CI, 0.80-1.62], p = 0.48), mortality (RR 0.53 [95% CI, 0.23-1.26], p = 0.15), delayed gastric emptying (RR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.59-1.62], p = 0.93), and the need for further pyloric intervention (RR 1.99 [95% CI, 0.56-7.08], p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Where post-operative pyloric treatment is available on demand, surgical pyloric drainage procedures may not have any significant clinical impact on patient outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy, though further good-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this.

Endoscopic pyloromyotomy in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a novel approach.

BACKGROUND: Pyloric drainage procedures, namely pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty, have long been considered an integral aspect of esophagectomy. However, the requirement of pyloric drainage in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been brought into question. This is in part because of the technical challenges of performing the pyloric drainage laparoscopically, leading many surgical teams to explore other options or to abandon this procedure entirely. We have developed a novel, technically facile, endoscopic approach to pyloromyotomy, and sought to assess the efficacy of this new approach compared to the standard surgical pyloromyotomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent MIE for cancer from 01/2010 to 12/2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database and were divided into two groups according to the pyloric drainage procedure: endoscopic or surgical pyloric drainage. 30-day outcomes (complications, length of stay, readmissions) and pyloric drainage-related outcomes [conduit distension/width, nasogastric tube (NGT) duration and re-insertion, gastric stasis] were compared between groups. RESULTS: 94 patients were identified of these 52 patients underwent endoscopic PM and 42 patients underwent surgical PM. The groups were similar with respect to age, gender and comorbidities. There were more Ivor-Lewis esophagectomies in the endoscopic PM group than the surgical PM group [45 (86%), 15 (36%) p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications and readmissions. Gastric stasis requiring NGT re-insertion was rare in the endoscopic PM group and did not differ significantly from the surgical PM group (1.9-4.7% p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic pyloromyotomy using a novel approach is a safe, quick and reproducible technique with comparable results to a surgical PM in the setting of MIE.

Surgical Adjuncts During Esophagectomy.

Esophagectomy is a major operation whereby intraoperative technique and postoperative care must be optimal. Even in expert hands, the complication rate is as high as 59%. Here the authors discuss the role of surgical adjuncts, including enteral access, nasogastric decompression, pyloric drainage procedures, and anastomotic buttressing as adjuncts to esophagectomy and whether they reduce perioperative complications.

Does pyloric drainage have a role in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy?

INTRODUCTION: Pyloric drainage during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may be more technically challenging than with an open approach. Alternatives to classic surgical drainage have increased in popularity; however, data are lacking to demonstrate whether one technique is superior in MIE. The purpose of this study was to compare post-operative outcomes after MIE between different pyloric drainage methods. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing MIE at a single academic institution. Patients were divided into three groups for analysis: no drainage, intrapyloric Botulinum Toxin injection, and surgical drainage (pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy). The primary outcome was any complication within 90 days of surgery; secondary outcomes included reported symptoms and need for pyloric dilation at 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Comparisons among groups were conducted using the Kruskal Wallis and Chi Square tests. RESULTS: There were 283 MIE performed between 2011 and 2017; of these, 126 (45%) had drainage (53 Botulinum injection and 73 surgical). No significant difference in the rate of post-operative complications, pneumonia, or anastomotic leak was observed between groups. At 6 and 12 months, patients that received Botulinum injection and surgical drainage had significantly more symptoms than no drainage (p < 0.0001) and higher need for pyloric dilation at 6 months (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Pyloric drainage was not significantly associated with lower post-operative complications or long-term symptoms. While Botulinum injection appears safe post-operatively, it was associated with increased morbidity long-term. Pyloric drainage in MIE may be unnecessary.

Intraoperative Pyloric Interventions during Oesophagectomy: a Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND: Denervation of the pylorus after oesophagectomy is considered the principal factor responsible for delayed gastric emptying. Several studies have attempted to delineate whether surgical or chemical management of the pylorus during oesophagectomy is of benefit, but with conflicting results. The aim of this multicentre study was to assess whether there was any difference in outcomes between different approaches to management of the pylorus. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients who underwent oesophagectomy for malignancy. They were divided into separate cohorts based on the specific pyloric intervention: intra-pyloric botulinum toxin injection, pyloroplasty and no pyloric treatment. Main outcome parameters were naso-gastric tube duration and re-siting, endoscopic pyloric intervention after surgery both as in- and outpatient, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality and delayed gastric emptying symptoms at first clinic appointment. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in this study, 30 in each group. The duration of post-operative naso-gastric tube placement demonstrated significance between the groups (p = 0.001), being longer for patients receiving botulinum treatment. The requirement for endoscopic pyloric treatment after surgery was again poorer for those receiving botulinum (p = 0.032 and 0.003 for inpatient and outpatient endoscopy, respectively). CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence of superiority of surgical treatment or botulinum toxin of the pylorus, as prophylactic treatment for potential delayed gastric emptying after oesophagectomy, compared to no treatment at all. Based on our findings, no treatment of the pylorus yielded the most favourable outcomes.

Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing esophagectomy without pyloric drainage.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after esophagectomy is 10%-50%, which can interfere with postoperative recovery in the short-term and result in poor quality of life in the long term. Pyloric drainage is routinely performed to prevent DGE, but its role is highly controversial. The aim of this study was to report the rate of DGE after esophagectomy without pyloric drainage and to investigate its risk factors and the potential effect on recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2010 and January 2015, we analyzed 285 consecutive patients who received an esophagectomy without pyloric drainage. Possible correlations between the incidence of DGE and its potential risk factors were examined in univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. The outcomes of DGE were reviewed with a follow-up of 3 mo. RESULTS: The overall rate of DGE after esophagectomy was 18.2% (52/285). Among perioperative factors, gastric size (gastric tube versus the whole stomach) was the only significant factor affecting the incidence of DGE in the univariate analysis. The patients who received a whole stomach as an esophageal substitute were more likely to develop DGE than were patients with a gastric tube (13.2% versus 22.4%; P = 0.05). No independent risk factor for DGE was found in the multivariate analysis. The incidence of major postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, respiratory complications, and cardiac complications, was also not significantly different between both groups, with or without DGE. Within 3 mo of follow-up, most patients could effectively manage their DGE through medication (39/52) or endoscopic pyloric dilation (12/52), with only one patient requiring surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the overall incidence of DGE is about 20% for patients undergoing esophagectomy without pyloric drainage. Compared with prior findings, this does not result in a significantly increased incidence of DGE. In patients with symptoms of DGE after esophagectomy, prokinetic agents and endoscopic balloon dilation of the pylorus can be effective, as indicated by the high success rate and lack of significant complications.