Scholarlink

Background <p>DGCE complicates 10–50% of ILE and is associated with prolonged hospital stay, aspiration pneumonia, and impaired quality of life. Several intraoperative drainage techniques have been proposed, but the optimal prophylactic approach remains unclear.</p> Methods <p>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane (PRISMA 2020; PROSPERO CRD420251025012; SWiM reporting guideline) for studies comparing intraoperative prophylactic pyloric drainage (pyloroplasty, botulinum toxin injection, pyloromyotomy, or mechanical balloon dilation) with no intervention in ILE. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (non-randomized studies), and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Pooled estimates were framed as exploratory.</p> Results <p>Four studies (<i>n</i> = 739; one RCT, three observational cohorts) were eligible. Pooled DGCE in the no-intervention arms was 32.1% (95% CI 4.4–82.9%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 93.7%). Exploratory random-effects risk ratios versus no intervention were 0.28 (95% CI 0.03–2.24) for pyloroplasty (<i>k</i> = 3) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.48–1.05) for botulinum toxin (<i>k</i> = 3); excluding Cerfolio 2009 (POD-4 radiologic outcome incompatible with the other studies), the estimates were 0.07 (95% CI 0.01–0.59) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.54–1.81), respectively. Pyloromyotomy is reported in a single study and described narratively. Certainty of evidence (GRADE): very low.</p> Conclusion <p>The current evidence is too sparse and heterogeneous to support routine intraoperative pyloric drainage in ILE. Use of standardized DGCE definitions and adequately powered ILE-restricted randomized trials is required.</p> Graphical abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prophylactic pyloric drainage for prevention of delayed gastric conduit emptying following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a systematic review with exploratory synthesis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月31日

查看全文
  • Pascal Burri,
  • Dimitrios Chatziisaak,
  • Marcel A. Schneider,
  • Christian A. Gutschow,
  • Kristjan Ukegjini,
  • René Warschkow,
  • Thomas Steffen

摘要

Background

DGCE complicates 10–50% of ILE and is associated with prolonged hospital stay, aspiration pneumonia, and impaired quality of life. Several intraoperative drainage techniques have been proposed, but the optimal prophylactic approach remains unclear.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane (PRISMA 2020; PROSPERO CRD420251025012; SWiM reporting guideline) for studies comparing intraoperative prophylactic pyloric drainage (pyloroplasty, botulinum toxin injection, pyloromyotomy, or mechanical balloon dilation) with no intervention in ILE. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (non-randomized studies), and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Pooled estimates were framed as exploratory.

Results

Four studies (n = 739; one RCT, three observational cohorts) were eligible. Pooled DGCE in the no-intervention arms was 32.1% (95% CI 4.4–82.9%; I2 = 93.7%). Exploratory random-effects risk ratios versus no intervention were 0.28 (95% CI 0.03–2.24) for pyloroplasty (k = 3) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.48–1.05) for botulinum toxin (k = 3); excluding Cerfolio 2009 (POD-4 radiologic outcome incompatible with the other studies), the estimates were 0.07 (95% CI 0.01–0.59) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.54–1.81), respectively. Pyloromyotomy is reported in a single study and described narratively. Certainty of evidence (GRADE): very low.

Conclusion

The current evidence is too sparse and heterogeneous to support routine intraoperative pyloric drainage in ILE. Use of standardized DGCE definitions and adequately powered ILE-restricted randomized trials is required.

Graphical abstract