Search

Abstract Background The number of patients who are undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy for treating gastric cancer is increasing. Although prophylactic drains have been widely employed following the procedure, there are few studies reporting the efficacy of prophylactic drainage. Therefore, this study assessed the efficacy of prophylactic drains following laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods Data of patients who received laparoscopic gastrectomy for treating gastric cancer in our institution between April 2011 and March 2017 were reviewed, and the outcomes of patients with and without a prophylactic drainage were compared. Propensity score matching was used to minimize potential selection bias. Results A total of 779 patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer were reviewed; of these, 628 patients who received elective laparoscopic gastrectomy were included in this study. After propensity score matching, data of 145 pairs of patients were extracted. No significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative complications between the drain and no-drain groups (19.3% vs 11.0%, P = 0.071). The days after the surgery until the initiation of soft diet (6.3 ± 7.4 vs 4.9 ± 2.9 days, P = 0.036) and the length of postoperative hospital stay (15.7 ± 12.9 vs 13.0 ± 6.3 days, P = 0.023) were greater in the drain group than those in the no-drain group. Conclusions This study suggests that routinely using prophylactic drainage following laparoscopic gastrectomy for treating gastric cancer is not obligatory.

Background: Unnecessary intra-abdominal drain insertion must be avoided, but little is known about the value of prophylactic drainage following laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). In this study, we investigated the significance of prophylactic drain placement after LDG for gastric cancer. Methods: Seventy-eight consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent LDG in our department were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the insertion of a prophylactic intra-abdominal drain following LDG. The 'drain group' comprised 45 patients with routine use of a prophylactic intra-abdominal drain, and the 'no-drain group' comprised 33 patients who did not undergo placement of an intra-abdominal drain. Results: There were no significant differences in terms of the mean age of the patients, male/female ratio, body mass index, and concurrent diseases between the drain group and the no-drain group. In addition, there were no significant differences in the tumor location, tumor diameter, depth of the tumor, nodal metastasis, and tumor stage between the two groups. All patients in each group were successfully treated with R0 surgery, and no patient required conversion to open surgery. Surgery-related factors, including lymph node dissection and operative time, were similar in the drain group and the no-drain group. A comparison of the amount of intraoperative blood loss between patients with and without postoperative complications revealed that patients who experienced postoperative complications had a significantly larger amount of blood loss than those without postoperative complications. A comparison of operative times between patients with and without surgery-related postoperative local complications revealed that patients who experienced surgery-related postoperative local complications had a significantly longer operative time than those without surgery-related postoperative local complications. Analysis of operative times in each group revealed that patients with surgery-related postoperative local complications had a significantly longer operative time than those without surgery-related postoperative local complications in the no-drain group. Conclusions: Intraoperative factors such as the operative time and the amount of intraoperative blood loss affected the occurrence of postoperative complications following LDG. A prophylactic drain may thus be useful in patients at higher risk and in those with a longer operative time or massive intraoperative bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer implies blind manipulation of the intrathoracic esophagus. We report a secure hemostatic method with gauze packing in transhiatal esophagectomy. Methods: The gauze-packing technique is utilized for hemostasis just after removal of the thoracic esophagus during transhiatal esophagectomy. After confirming cancer-free margins, the abdominal esophagus and cervical esophagus are transected. A vein stripper is inserted into the oral-side stump of the esophagus and led to exit from the abdominal-side stump of the esophagus. The vein stripper and the oral stump of the esophagus are affixed by silk thread. A polyester tape is then affixed to the vein stripper, as the polyester tape is left in the posterior mediastinum after removal of the esophagus toward the abdominal side. The polyester tape on the cervical side is ligated with gauze and the polyester tape is removed toward the abdominal side. The oral stump of gauze and new additional gauze are affixed. As the first gauze is pulled out from the abdominal side, the second gauze gets drawn from the cervical wound into the mediastinum. The posterior mediastinum is finally packed with gauze and possible bleeding at this site undergoes a complete astriction. The status of hemostasis with the gauze packing is checked by an observation of color and bloodstain on the gauze. Results: Between January 2005 and February 2012, 13 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer underwent a transhiatal esophagectomy with the gauze-packing hemostatic technique. Hemostasis at the posterior mediastinum was performed successfully and quickly in all cases with this method, requiring up to four pieces of gauze for a complete hemostasis. Median required time for hemostasis was 1219 (range 1896 to 1293) seconds and estimated blood loss was 20.4 (range 15 to 25) ml during gauze packing. Conclusions: Our technique could minimize bleeding after the removal of the thoracic esophagus. The gauze-packing method is a simple and easy technique for secure hemostasis when performing a transhiatal esophagectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]