[Impact of gastric tube diameter on quality of life of esophagus cancer patient after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the gastric tube diameter on quality of life of esophagus cancer patients after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. METHODS: Clinical and follow-up data of 188 esophageal cancer patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Drum Tower Clinical Medicine College, Nanjing Medical University from January 2015 to June 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria included age <75 years old, good foundation health situation, no distant metastasis, complete follow-up data for one-year after surgery, and middle-lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). According to the diameter of gastric tube formed during operation, 92 patients were assigned to narrow gastric tube group (NGT group, ≥2 cm to <4 cm), which were further divided into narrower group (≥2 cm to <3 cm, n=44) and medium narrow group (≥3 cm to <4 cm, n=48); 96 patients were assigned to wide gastric tube group(WGT group, ≥4 cm), which were further divided into medium wide group(≥4 cm to <5 cm, n=50) and wider group(≥5 cm, n=46). Postoperative patients were followed up by telephone or outpatient service for one year and then re-hospitalized to receive associated examinations, including lung function test, esophageal pressure measurement, 24-hour esophageal dynamic pH monitoring (total number of pH<4, number of pH<4 lasting more than 5 minutes, maximum duration of pH<4 and time percentage of pH<4) and dilatation measurement of gastric tube (the diameter measured by CT minus the diameter measured in surgery). During follow-up, postoperative quality of life(QoL) was assessed by questionnaire. These contents were compared and plotted as a chart. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between NGT group and WGT group regard to preoperative baseline information, postoperative pathology and postoperative complications (residual gastric leakage, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, pulmonary complications, atrial fibrillation and chylothorax) (all P>0.05). Compared with WGT group, the NGT group had better postoperative lung function, including percentage of vital capacity [(76.4±6.8)% vs. (73.2±7.7)%, t=2.168, P=0.033], percentage of maximal voluntary ventilation [(72.7±6.4)% vs. (69.3±6.8)%, t=2.409, P=0.018] and percentage of forced expiratory volume in the first second [(69.2±5.0)% vs. (66.7±6.2)%, t=2.033, P=0.045], higher plane pressure of anastomotic stoma [(5.4±3.1) mmHg vs. (4.2±2.4) mmHg, t=2.083, P=0.038], greater dilatation of gastric tube [(1.0±0.4) cm vs. (0.5±0.3) cm, t=5.888, P=0.000], milder gastroesophageal reflux according to the indices of 24-hour esophageal dynamic pH monitoring, including the total number of pH<4 (228.3±65.3 vs. 280.8±103.9, t=-2.920,P=0.004), the number of pH<4 lasting more than 5 minutes (19.9±8.5 vs. 30.6±15.6, t=-4.127,P=0.000), the maximum duration of pH<4[(32.5±9.4) minutes vs. (37.9±13.6) minutes, t=-2.232,P=0.028] and the time percentage of pH<4 [(23.4±10.2)% vs. (28.4±10.6)%, t=-2.303, P=0.024]. However, no significant difference was found in the scores of postoperative QoL between the two groups(P=0.051). According to the pairwise comparisons among the four subgroups, narrower group showed better performance on postoperative lung function, plane pressure of anastomotic stoma, the dilatation of gastric tube, indices of 24-hour esophageal dynamic pH monitoring and scores of postoperative QoL as compared to wider group (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among medium narrow group, medium wide group and wider group. Line charts showed that the larger of the gastric tube diameter, the worse of the postoperative lung function, the more severe of gastroesophageal reflux and the smaller degree of gastric tube dilatation. CONCLUSION: Narrow gastric tube with a diameter of 2-4 cm can improve the postoperative QoL of esophagus cancer patients after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.