Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22382705›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2012

Safe management of anastomotic leakage after gastric cancer surgery with enteral nutrition via a nasointestinal tube.

Yoshimasa Akashi, Naoki Hiki, Souya Nunobe, Xiaohua Jiang, Toshiharu Yamaguchi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Results of endoscopic and surgical fistula treatment in oesophagointestinal anastomosis after gastrectomy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2016
    Article
  8. Advantages of enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yoshimasa AkashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-10-6 Ariake, Kōtō, Tokyo 135-8550, Japan.
Naoki Hiki
Souya Nunobe
Xiaohua Jiang
Toshiharu Yamaguchi
Japanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JPZhongda Hospital Southeast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAnastomotic leakage is a serious complication after gastric cancer surgery. Despite the superiority of enteral nutrition (EN), total parenteral nutrition (PN) remains the standard therapy for anastomotic leakage. After introduction of EN via a nasointestinal tube for patients with anastomotic leakage in our institution in 2006, standard nutritional therapy was shifted gradually from PN to EN. The present preliminary study evaluates the safety and feasibility of EN via a nasointestinal tube for anastomotic leakage after gastric cancer surgery.

methodsRetrospective review of all gastric cancer surgeries from 2005 to 2009 (n = 2,588) revealed 53 patients (2.0%) who developed anastomotic leakage and were treated conservatively. EN was performed via a nasointestinal tube inserted using a guidewire under X-ray fluoroscopy. Clinical outcomes and complications following EN were compared with those in patients treated with PN (historical control group). The severity of complications was evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

resultsFifty patients were included in the final analysis (three patients died): 29 patients managed by EN and 21 managed by PN. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes and the frequency of total complications between the two groups; however, there were fewer tube/catheter-related complications in the EN compared with the PN group (1 vs. 7, respectively; P < 0.01). There was one epistaxis (3.4%; grade I) in the EN group and seven catheter infections (33.3%; grade II) in the PN group. The risk of grade II or higher complications was greater in the PN than the EN group (11 vs. 4, respectively; P < 0.01), with the greatest difference seen in the incidence of catheter infections. On days 7, 10, and 15 after diagnosis of leakage, the white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels were higher in the PN than in the EN group. The PN group required prolonged intravenous antibiotic infusion (P < 0.01).

conclusionsNasointestinal tube insertion with EN can be performed safely for patients with anastomotic leakage. A major advantage of EN is fewer infectious complications. Because EN was not inferior to PN in terms of clinical outcome, we recommended that it is used in patients with anastomotic leakage after gastric cancer surgery.

Indexed as

AgedAnastomotic LeakAnti-Bacterial AgentsCohort StudiesEnteral NutritionFeasibility StudiesFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalMaleMiddle AgedParenteral NutritionPostoperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID22382705
OpenAlexW2115690335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.