ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Nasogastric tube after oesophagectomy and risk of anastomotic leak: a Nordic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applicability and results of the consensus definition of delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Evolution and refinements in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Too fast or too slow?: Considerations in the era of enhanced recovery and FAST Track for upper GI surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Securing the Achilles' Heel of Esophagectomy: An Updated Evidence-Based Roadmap for Anastomotic Leak Prevention.Cancers · 2026Review
- Experience with H anastomosis and its perioperative management protocol in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison with stapled non-enhanced recovery after surgery pathway.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Optimizing perioperative care in esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Intermittent oroesophageal vs. nasogastric tube feeding in frail elderly with dysphagia: a retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for cancer in enhanced recovery protocol versus conventional care: clinical characteristics and outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oesophagectomy, a corner stone in curative treatment of oesophageal cancer, is a complex procedure with high complication rates. Postoperative gastric tube decompression is debated and some centres are abandoning routine nasogastric (NG) tube use. We hypothesised that postoperative NG tube removal is non-inferior to five days of NG tube decompression, with regard to the risk of anastomotic leak. Methods: In this open-label, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial across 12 hospitals in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, participants treated for oesophageal or gastroesophageal junctional cancer with oesophagectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) to no postoperative NG tube or five days of NG tube decompression. Anastomotic leak was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included pneumonia and length of hospital stay. Analyses were performed on the intention to treat and per protocol populations and non-inferiority for anastomotic leak was defined as a risk difference below 9%. ISRCTN.com registration ISRCTN39935085. Findings: Between January 1st 2022 and March 27th 2024, 448 patients were randomly assigned, 217 to no postoperative NG tube and 231 to five days NG tube treatment. The mean age was 67.5 (standard deviation (SD) 9.8) years and 367 (81.9%) were males. Non-inferiority with regard to anastomotic leak for no NG tube decompression could not be shown with 48 patients (22.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.8%, 28.2%)) having anastomotic leak compared to 35 (15.2% (95% CI 10.8%, 20.4%)) with five days of NG tube decompression, a risk difference of -7.0% (95% CI -14.4%, 0.00%), p Interpretation: We could not establish safety (increased risk of anastomotic leak) and therefore do not support omission of NG tube after oesophagectomy. Funding: This trial was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Nordic Cancer Union.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.