Pyloric drainage (pyloroplasty) or no drainage in gastric reconstruction after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
A gastric conduit is usually used to reconstruct the foregut after esophagectomy for cancer. The gastric emptying may be impaired after this operation, so some esophageal surgeons routinely add a pyloric drainage procedure (pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effect of pyloric drainage on patient outcomes.


METHODS
Medline and manual searches were done (completed independently and in duplicate) to identify all published RCTs that addressed the issue of pyloric drainage procedures during gastric conduit reconstruction of the esophagus. The selection process was inclusive; no trials were excluded. Trial validity assessment was done, and a trial quality score was assigned. Early outcomes assessed by meta-analysis included operative mortality, esophagogastric anastomotic leaks, pulmonary morbidity, pyloric drainage complications, fatal pulmonary aspiration, and gastric outlet obstruction. A random-effects model was used, and the relative risk was the principal measure of effect. Systematic semiquantitative review was used for late outcomes such as gastric emptying, bile reflux, nutritional status, and obstructive foregut symptoms.


RESULTS
Nine RCTs, that included a total of 553 patients, were selected, with quality scores ranging from 1 to 4 (5-point Jadad scale). Selection and validity agreement was strong. The relative risk (95% CI; p value), expressed as pyloric drainage versus no drainage (treatment vs. control), was 0.92 (0.34, 2.44; p = 0.86) for operative mortality, 0.90 (0.47, 1.76; p = 0.77) for esophagogastric anastomotic leaks, 0.69 (0.42, 1.14; p = 0.15) for pulmonary morbidity, 2.55 (0.34, 18.98; p = 0.36) for pyloric drainage complications, 0.25 (0.04, 1.60; p = 0.14) for fatal pulmonary aspiration, and 0.18 (0.03, 0.97; p = 0.046) for gastric outlet obstruction. Systematic semiquantitative review showed a nonsignificant trend favoring pyloric drainage for the late outcomes of gastric emptying, nutritional status, and obstructive foregut symptoms. For the late outcome of bile reflux, there was a nonsignificant trend favoring the no-drainage group. The scintographic gastric emptying time, expressed as a ratio (pyloric drainage/no drainage), was 0.53.


CONCLUSIONS
Data synthesized from existing RCTs show that pyloric drainage procedures reduce the occurrence of early postoperative gastric outlet obstruction after esophagectomy with gastric reconstruction, but they have little effect on other early and late patient outcomes.
Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., Canada. urschelj@mcmaster.ca
John D
JD
Urschel
Chris J
CJ
Blewett
J Edward M
JE
Young
John D
JD
Miller
W Frederick
WF
Bennett
D004322:Drainage; D004938:Esophageal Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D016629:Esophagectomy; D015391:Gastroplasty / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D011708:Pylorus / Q000601:surgery*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome