Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40799505›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025

Nasogastric tube after oesophagectomy and risk of anastomotic leak: a Nordic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Jakob Hedberg, Joonas Kauppila, Eirik Kjus Aahlin, David Edholm, Gjermund Johnsen, Jan Johansson, Pernilla Lagergren, Mats Lindblad, Fredrik Lindberg, Olli Helminen and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

21 authors.

Jakob HedbergDept of Surgical Siences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Joonas KauppilaUniversity of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Eirik Kjus AahlinFaculty of Health, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway.
David EdholmDepartment of Surgery in Linköping and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Gjermund JohnsenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Jan JohanssonDepartment of Surgery, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Pernilla LagergrenDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholn, Sweden.
Mats LindbladDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fredrik LindbergDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden.
Olli HelminenUniversity of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Per LöfdahlDepartment of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Dag Tidemann FørlandDepartment of Pediatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.
Mads VikhammerDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Pieter de HeerDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Magnus SundbomDept of Surgical Siences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Eva SzaboDepartment of Surgery, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Oscar ÅkessonDepartment of Surgery, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Magnus NilssonDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Albert NilssonDepartment of Biostatistics, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Michael AchiamDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tom MalaDepartment of Pediatric and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anastomotic leakComplicationsNasogastric tubeOesophageal cancerOesophagectomyPostoperative care

Identifiers

PMID40799505
PMCPMC12337195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.