ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Retrograde gastric decompression and anterograde enteral nutrition feeding in retrosternal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative care after McKeown esophagectomy remains challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrograde gastric decompression and feeding as an alternative to nasogastric decompression and nasogastric-jejunal feeding.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 142 esophageal cancer patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy (between June 2020 and August 2022): retrograde gastric decompression and feeding (n=74) vs. nasogastric-jejunal (n=68). Outcomes included operative parameters, complications, and recovery metrics.
resultsRetrograde gastric decompression and feeding required longer operative time (183.0±41.7 vs. 169.4±32.6 min, p=0.031) but showed comparable blood loss, R0 resection rates (95.9 vs. 97.1%), and lymph node yield. Gastric tube retention was shorter with retrograde gastric decompression and feeding (3.2±1.6 vs. 3.6±1.4 days). Complication rates (anastomotic leak: 10.8 vs. 10.3%; respiratory: 16.2 vs. 16.2%) and in-hospital mortality (1.4 vs. 1.5%) were similar. Tube-related complications trended lower with retrograde gastric decompression and feeding (5.4 vs. 10.3%, p=0.276).
conclusionRetrograde gastric decompression and feeding is a safe, effective method for enteral nutrition and decompression post-esophagectomy.
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.