Original Article
The dynamic of nasogastric decompression after esophagectomy and its predictive value of postoperative complications
Abstract
Background: To investigate the regularity and the influence factors of nasogastric decompression volume after esophagectomy, and explore whether the volume of nasogastric decompression can be employed as a predictor for postoperative complications of esophageal carcinoma.
Methods: Consecutive 247 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy were retrospectively evaluated. The volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression was recorded and the regularity based on it was described. The single and multiple factors regression analysis were used to find out relative factors of the nasogastric decompression volume among the patients without postoperative complication. Gender, age, height, weight, tobacco or alcohol exposure, location of the tumor, histological type, pathological staging, operation time, surgical procedures, anastomotic position and gastric conduit reconstruction were considered as the independent variable. Then, verify the former regression models using the data of patients with postoperative complications.
Results: In trend analysis, the curve estimation revealed a quadratic trend in the relationship between nasogastric decompression volume and postoperative days (R2 =0.890, P=0.004). The volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression was described by daily drainage (mL) =82.215 + 69.620×days − 6.604×days2. The results of multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that gastric conduit reconstruction (β=0.410, P=0.000), smoking (β=−0.231, P=0.000), age (β=−0.193, P=0.001) and histological type of the tumor (β=−0.169, P=0.006) were significantly related to the volume of nasogastric decompression. The average drainage in 5 days after surgery =262.287 + 132.873×X1 − 72.160×X2 − 27.904×X3 − 36.368×X4 (X1, gastric conduit reconstruction; X2, smoking; X3, histological type; X4, age). The nasogastric decompression of the patients with delayed gastric emptying, and lung infection statistically differ from their predictive values respectively according to the former equation (P<0.01), but the data of anastomotic leakage cases had no significance difference (P=0.344).
Conclusions: It is found that the volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression presents a quadratic trend based on the days after esophagectomy. Gastric conduit reconstruction, smoking history, age and histological type were independent factors affecting on the volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression. Also, the volume of nasogastric decompression has validity and application value for predicting postoperative complications.
Methods: Consecutive 247 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy were retrospectively evaluated. The volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression was recorded and the regularity based on it was described. The single and multiple factors regression analysis were used to find out relative factors of the nasogastric decompression volume among the patients without postoperative complication. Gender, age, height, weight, tobacco or alcohol exposure, location of the tumor, histological type, pathological staging, operation time, surgical procedures, anastomotic position and gastric conduit reconstruction were considered as the independent variable. Then, verify the former regression models using the data of patients with postoperative complications.
Results: In trend analysis, the curve estimation revealed a quadratic trend in the relationship between nasogastric decompression volume and postoperative days (R2 =0.890, P=0.004). The volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression was described by daily drainage (mL) =82.215 + 69.620×days − 6.604×days2. The results of multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that gastric conduit reconstruction (β=0.410, P=0.000), smoking (β=−0.231, P=0.000), age (β=−0.193, P=0.001) and histological type of the tumor (β=−0.169, P=0.006) were significantly related to the volume of nasogastric decompression. The average drainage in 5 days after surgery =262.287 + 132.873×X1 − 72.160×X2 − 27.904×X3 − 36.368×X4 (X1, gastric conduit reconstruction; X2, smoking; X3, histological type; X4, age). The nasogastric decompression of the patients with delayed gastric emptying, and lung infection statistically differ from their predictive values respectively according to the former equation (P<0.01), but the data of anastomotic leakage cases had no significance difference (P=0.344).
Conclusions: It is found that the volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression presents a quadratic trend based on the days after esophagectomy. Gastric conduit reconstruction, smoking history, age and histological type were independent factors affecting on the volume of postoperative nasogastric decompression. Also, the volume of nasogastric decompression has validity and application value for predicting postoperative complications.
