Nasogastric decompression following elective colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized study. The role of nasointestinal intubation in elective colonic surgery. A prospective randomized trial of routine postoperative nasogastric decompression in patients with bowel anastomosis. Nasogastric decompression is not necessary in operations for gastric cancer: prospective randomised trial. Prospective, randomized evaluation of early removal of nasogastric tubes in postceliotomy trauma patients. Nasogastric suction after elective abdominal surgery: a randomised study. Gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract. Is nasogastric intubation necessary in colon operations? Intraperitoneal drains and nasogastric tubes in elective cholecystectomy. Prophylactic postoperative nasogastric decompression. A prospective study of its requirement and the influence of cimetidine in 200 patients. Early feeding compared with nasogastric decompression after major oncologic gynecologic surgery: a randomized study. Tubeless post-operative care of elective cases of duodenal ulcer: a controlled study of 170 cases. Patient comfort after upper abdominal surgery. Effect of routine nasogastric suction. Elective colon and rectal surgery without nasogastric decompression. A prospective, randomized trial. Early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding improve patients' rehabilitation after colorectostomy. Evidence for early nasogastric tube removal after infrarenal aortic surgery: a randomized trial. Omission of nasogastric tube application in postoperative care of esophagectomy. A randomized prospective trial comparing three established methods of gastric decompression after vagotomy. Value of nasogastric tube after colorectal surgery. Randomized clinical trial evaluating the need for routine nasogastric decompression after elective hepatic resection. There is no need for nasogastric decompression after partial gastrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy. Nasojejunal tube placement after total gastrectomy: a multicenter prospective randomized trial. A prospective randomized study of abdominal aortic surgery without postoperative nasogastric decompression. A randomized controlled trial of postoperative nasogastric tube decompression in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. Is nasogastric aspiration really necessary following cholecystectomy? Is nasogastric or nasojejunal decompression necessary after gastrectomy? A prospective randomized trial. Nasogastric intubation after intestinal resection. Evaluation of the routine use of the nasogastric tube in digestive operation by a prospective controlled study. The role of nasogastric tube after elective abdominal surgery. Comparison of gastric cancer surgery with versus without nasogastric decompression. Is early postoperative feeding feasible in elective colon and rectal surgery? Does the avoidance of nasogastric decompression following elective abdominal colorectal surgery affect the incidence of incisional hernia? Results of a prospective, randomized trial. Postoperative nasogastric decompression: a prospective randomized trial.
A prospective, randomized study was conducted to determine the need for nasogastric decompression following elective colorectal surgery for malignant and premalignant lesions. Seventy-seven consecutive patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group 1--nasogastric decompression was maintained postoperatively until resumption of bowel function; Group 2--the nasogastric tube was removed in the recovery room. Forty patients were assigned to Group 1 (21 males, 19 females) and 37 to Group 2 (22 males and 15 females). Eleven patients in Group 1 (28%) developed nausea postoperatively, with six patients (15%) having an average of less than two emeses and five (12%) requiring nasogastric reintubation. Thirteen patients in Group 2 (35%) developed nausea, with 10 patients (27%) having an average of two emeses and three (8%) requiring nasogastric intubation (P = 0.80). Abdominal distention was observed in 13 patients (32%) in both Group 1 (32%) and Group 2 (35%). Two of the latter patients required nasogastric reintubation. Postoperative fever was noted in 23 patients (58%) in Group 1 and 14 (38%) in Group 2 (P = 0.13); atelectasis was diagnosed in 38 per cent of patients in Group 1 and 14 per cent in Group 2 (P = 0.03). These data support that nasogastric decompression is not necessary following elective colorectal surgery for malignant and premalignant lesions. One hundred thirty-eight consecutive patients undergoing elective colonic resections were treated prospectively and randomly with either a long intestinal (Cantor) tube preoperatively, a nasogastric tube placed intraoperatively, or no gastrointestinal tube at all. Patients were evaluated for length of hospital stay, duration of postoperative ileus, adequacy of intraoperative intestinal decompression, gastric dilatation, and operative complications. No significant difference could be seen in the tubed or no-tube group. Until relatively recently, the nasogastric (NG) tube has been used routinely for decompression in the patient with small- or large-bowel anastomosis. To determine if routine postoperative NG decompression benefited such patients, 102 patients were randomized prospectively to either NG decompression or no-NG tube. Excluded were patients with chronic bowel obstruction, peritonitis, gross fecal contamination or spillage, and previous abdominal or pelvic irradiation. There were 52 patients in the no-NG group and 50 in the NG group. Patients in the no-NG group had earlier bowel sounds, return of flatus, oral intake and first bowel movement. Four patients (8%) in the no-NG group, compared with one patient (2%) in the NG group, required subsequent decompression. Length of hospital stay was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter in the no-NG group. There were no significant differences in the presence of atelectasis, postoperative fever, wound infections and anastomotic leaks between the two groups. The authors conclude that routine nasogastric decompression is not warranted after elective surgery involving small- or large-bowel anastomosis. To assess the need for routine nasogastric decompression after extensive resections in patients with gastric cancer.
                Prospective randomised study.
                University hospital, Korea.
                Over a 1-year period (July 1999-July 200), 136 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy with D2 or more lymph node dissection.
                Randomised to have nasogastric decompression (n = 69) or not (n = 67).
                Postoperative course, morbidity, and mortality.
                Time to passage of first flatus, time to taking liquid diet, length of operation, and postoperative hospital stay were all significantly shorter in the no decompression group. Two patients in each group required subsequent nasogastric decompression. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning the presence of postoperative fever, nausea, vomiting, anastomotic leaks, or pulmonary or wound complications. No patients died.
                Routine nasogastric decompression is not necessary in elective operations for gastric cancer. The objective of this study is to compare early (24-hour) removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in trauma patients who have undergone emergency celiotomy to removal based on clinical signs of return of bowel function. All trauma patients who underwent an emergency celiotomy between November 1994 and August 1997 were randomized to 24-hour NGT removal, or removal when flatus and decreased NG output indicated. Exclusion criteria included patients with duodenal or esophageal injuries, those with airway intubations that were >24 hours, or those who had undergone same-hospitalization repeat celiotomy. Gastric or severity of intestinal injury were not exclusion criteria. Failure of NGT removal was defined as pain, abdominal distention, and vomiting. Mechanisms of injury, Injury Severity Score, operative findings, NGT removal times, morbidity, laboratory data, and reasons for failure were evaluated. A total of 177 patients qualified for the study. Two patients were inappropriately randomized and subsequently excluded. Of the remaining 175 patients, 151 sustained penetrating injuries and 24 sustained blunt injuries. Of the 151 patients in the penetrating injury group, 68 were randomized to the 24-hour pull (study) group and 83 were randomized to the clinical pull (control) group. There were three failures in the study group [3 of 68 patients (4.4%)] and three failures in the control group [3 of 83 patients (3.6%)]. Of the 24 blunt injury patients, 10 were randomized to the study group and 14 were randomized to the control group. There was one failure in the study group [1 of 10 patients (10.0%)] and one failure in the control group [1 of 14 patients (7.1%)]. Overall failure rate for the study group was 5.1 per cent [(3+1)/(68+10) = 5.1%] versus 4.1 per cent for the control group. Overall failure for all patients in the study was 4.6 per cent. Injury severity score, morbidity, and lab values were not significantly different. It is safe to remove NGTs at 24 hours in most trauma patients regardless of the severity of injury (failure rate, 5.1%). The surgical dogma of the need to have an NGT in longer for blunt trauma was not revealed in this study, however, a larger study would be needed to determine this with significance. The value of nasogastric tube decompression after elective abdominal operations was assessed in a randomised trial in which 97 patients were and 100 were not allocated postoperative nasogastric decompression. Only two patients in the latter group subsequently required decompression. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of mortality, complications (including vomiting) or time to return of intestinal motility between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of sore throat (P less than 0.0001) and nausea (P less than 0.05) in patients who received nasogastric decompression. A postal questionnaire to 259 UK general surgeons (96% replied) revealed that postoperative nasogastric decompression was usually used by 92% of surgeons after a Polya gastrectomy, 72% after a small bowel anastomosis, 49% after a large bowel anastomosis and 20% after cholecystectomy. We conclude that such a routine is not justified and should be reserved for those patients developing specific complications. To discuss the clinical significance of postoperative gastrointestinal decompression in operation on lower digestive tract.
                Three hundred and sixty-eight patients with excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract were divided into two groups, i.e. the group with postoperative gastrointestinal decompression and the group without postoperative gastrointestinal decompression. Clinical therapeutic outcome and incidence of complication were compared between two groups. Furthermore, an investigation on application of gastrointestinal decompression was carried out among 200 general surgeons.
                The volume of gastric juice in decompression group was about 200 mL every day after operation. Both groups had a lower girth before operation than every day after operation. No difference in length of the first passage of gas by anus and defecation after operation was found between two groups. The overall incidence of complications was obviously higher in decompression group than in non-decompression group (28% vs 8.2%, P<0.001). The incidence of pharyngolaryngitis was up to 23.1%. There was also no difference between two groups regarding the length of hospitalization after operation. The majority (97.5%) of general surgeons held that gastrointestinal decompression should be placed till passage of gas by anus, and only 2.5% of surgeons thought that gastrointestinal decompression should be placed for 2-3 d before passage of gas by anus. Nobody (0%) deemed it unnecessary for placing gastrointestinal compression after operation.
                Application of gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract cannot effectively reduce gastrointestinal tract pressure and has no obvious effect on preventing postoperative complications. On the contrary, it may increase the incidence of pharyngolaryngitis and other complications. Therefore, it is more beneficial to the recovery of patients without undergoing gastrointestinal decompression. Fifty-six patients undergoing elective colonic resection were prospectively randomized into two groups either with or without postoperative nasogastric decompression. The results demonstrated only minimal differences between the two groups. Postoperative abdominal distention was more common in patients without nasogastric tubes, whereas pulmonary complications were more common in patients with nasogastric tubes. Other morbidity and mortality and hospital stay were the same in both groups. We conclude that in elective colon operations, the routine use of postoperative nasogastric decompression is unnecessary and can safely be omitted. nan To determine the need for prophylactic nasogastric decompression following laparotomy and the influence of cimetidine, 200 consecutive patients who underwent major abdominal procedures were prospectively randomized into one of four limbs: no tube-placebo; no tube-cimetidine; tube-placebo; and tube-cimetidine. Patients were evenly distributed among these groups with respect to age, sex, alcohol and tobacco use, previous operations, and types of operations. There was significantly longer time until passage of flatus, bowel movement, and cessation of intravenous fluids in the tube group (p less than 0.05). Duration of postoperative stay increased from 11.4 to 14.1 days in the intubated patients (p less than 0.05). There was also significantly more pain with and frequency of swallowing, and nose/throat discomfort in the tube group. Nasogastric tubes reduced the incidence of vomiting from 28 in the no-tube group to 10 in the tube group (p less than 0.05), but most had only one or two episodes. Cimetidine did not affect either the incidence of vomiting or the duration of intubation, but was associated with a significant increase in pneumonias (p less than 0.05). Five patients without tubes initially, and seven patients with tubes had to have them inserted or replaced for vomiting or abdominal distention, which occurred equally in the placebo and cimetidine limbs. There were no cases of aspiration pneumonia, gastric dilatation, or wound dehiscence in the trial, and the four anastomotic leaks were divided equally between the tube and no-tube groups. The results indicated that prophylactic decompression was unnecessary in most patients and associated with increased morbidity and delayed return of gastrointestinal function. Cimetidine lowered nasogastric output on the first postoperative day (p less than 0.05), but did not prevent vomiting. To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of early feeding in patients undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancies.
                Patients were stratified according to operative time and type of tumor and were randomized into two arms: A) early oral feeding and B) nasogastric decompression followed by feeding at the first passage of flatus. Variables assessed included nausea, vomiting, time to first passage of flatus and stool, time elapsed before adequate tolerance of a regular diet, postoperative stay, and complications.
                Sixty-one patients were randomized into each arm. The types of tumor, the surgical procedures performed, and the operative times were similar in both groups. Early oral feeding in patients in arm A was associated with a significantly faster resolution of postoperative ileus (P < .01), with a more rapid return to a regular diet (P < .01), with an earlier first passage of stool (P < .01), and with a shorter postoperative stay (P < .05) than patients in arm B. Rates of nausea and vomiting were similar in both arms. Hindered deglutition and nasal soreness caused by the nasogastric tube were observed in 88% of patients in arm B. Insertion of a nasogastric tube was necessary in six patients in arm A (10%), and three of these had postoperative complications. Thus, early feeding was feasible in 95% of patients and did not seem to be related to preoperative chemotherapy, tumor type, or lymphadenectomy.
                Early feeding is feasible and well tolerated and is associated with reduced postoperative discomfort and a more rapid recovery in patients undergoing major surgery for gynecologic malignancies. nan nan Nasogastric (NG) decompression after colorectal surgery is practiced commonly. Our aim was to determine whether routine NG decompression benefitted patients undergoing this type of surgery. Five hundred thirty-five patients were randomized prospectively to either NG decompression or no decompression. Stratification was by type of operation and patient age. Excluded were patients who had emergency surgery with peritonitis, extensive fibrous adhesions, enterotomies, previous pelvic irradiation, intra-abdominal infection, pancreatitis, chronic obstruction. prolonged operating times, or difficult endotracheal intubation. Two hundred seventy-four patients received NG decompression (Salem sump, Argyle Co., Division of Sherwood Medical, St. Louis, MO) and two hundred sixty-one did not. There were 33 protocol violations included in the 535 patients. Patients who were not decompressed experienced significantly more abdominal distention, nausea, and vomiting than did those patients who were. Moreover, 13% required subsequent NG decompression as opposed to a reinsertion rate of 5% for patients routinely decompressed. The mean length of hospitalization for both groups was 11 days. There were no significant differences in nasopharyngeal or gastric bleeding, inability to cough effectively, respiratory infections, wound disruptions, reoperation, and wound infection rates (5%) between the two groups. We conclude that even though there is an increase in the rate of minor symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention, routine nasgastric decompression is not warranted after elective colon and rectal surgery. To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding in the patients undergoing surgery for colorectal carcinoma.
                Three hundred and sixteen patients submitted to operations associated with colorectostomy from January 2004 to September 2005 were randomized to two groups: In experimental group (n=161), the nasogastric tube was removed after the operation from 12 to 24 h and was promised immediately oral feeding; In control group (n=155), the nasogastric tube was maintained until the passage of flatus per rectum. Variables assessed included the time to first passage of flatus, the time to first passage of stool, the time elapsed postoperative stay, and postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage, acute dilation of stomach, wound infection and dehiscense, fever, pulmonary infection and pharyngolaryngitis.
                The median and average days to the first passage of flatus (3.0+/-0.9 vs 3.6+/-1.2, P<0.001), the first passage of stool (4.1+/-1.1 vs 4.8+/-1.4, P<0.001) and the length of postoperative stay (8.4+/-3.4 vs 9.6+/-5.0, P<0.05) were shorter in the experimental group than in the control group. The postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage (1.24% vs 2.58%), acute dilation of stomach (1.86% vs 0.06%) and wound complications (2.48% vs 1.94%) were similar in the groups, but fever (3.73% vs 9.68%, P<0.05), pulmonary infection (0.62% vs 4.52%, P<0.05) and pharyngolaryngitis (3.11% vs 23.23%, P<0.001) were much more in the control group than in the experimental group.
                The present study shows that application of gastrointestinal decompression after colorectostomy can not effectively reduce postoperative complications. On the contrary, it may increase the incidence rate of fever, pharyngolaryngitis and pulmonary infection. These strategies of early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding in the patients undergoing colorectostomy are feasible and safe and associated with reduced postoperative discomfort and can accelerate the return of bowel function and improve rehabilitation. Nasogastric tube (NGT) decompression after abdominal surgery is still largely used to prevent nausea and vomiting. However, indications are based more on practice than on studies. Moreover, prolonged NGT decompression can lead to complications. In this prospective and randomized study, we evaluated the effects of early withdrawal of NGTs in patients undergoing surgery of the infrarenal aorta.
                Between October 2001 and May 2002, consecutive patients underwent scheduled infrarenal aortic operations. Patients were prospectively randomised into two groups: group 1, NGT maintenance until the passage of flatus; and group 2, NGT removal at the time of tracheal extubation. Preoperative and perioperative data were collected. The main end point was the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Secondary end points were tolerance of NGT withdrawal and postoperative complications. Criteria were compared between groups by using Mann-Whitney or Fisher exact tests.
                Forty-six patients underwent aortic operations. Six patients were subsequently excluded from the study. Of the 40 randomized subjects, 20 patients were included in each group. Preoperative and intraoperative data were similar in both groups. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding nausea and vomiting. In group 1, the occurrence of respiratory complications was more frequent compared with group 2 (5 vs 0 complications; P = .023). There was no significant difference in intensive care unit stay, but the hospital stay was shorter in group 2 (mean, 9 +/- 3 days vs 15 +/- 9 days; P = .016). There were no differences in other adverse events.
                This study does not support a significant effect of early removal of NGTs on nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing open repair of the infrarenal aorta. However, these findings suggest that NGT maintenance increases the risk of respiratory complications and the length of hospital stay. Surgeons routinely use nasogastric (NG) tubes in most esophageal resection surgeries. Considering the numerous complications caused by using the tube and the uncertainty about its usefulness and the scarcity of studies conducted on the subject, particularly in patients with esophageal cancer, the necessity of using the tube in these types of cases is investigated in the present study.
                In this clinical trial, patients with esophageal cancer were randomized into groups with NG tube and without NG tube after surgery; the latter were prescribed metoclopramide, as well. The variables recorded for each patient included the first day of gas passage, defecation and bowel sounds (BSs) auscultation, as well as the duration of postoperative hospitalization, nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, pulmonary complications, wound complications, anastomosis leak, and the need for placing/replacing the NG tube.
                The incidence of anastomosis leak was significantly higher in the NG-tube group (6 vs. 0; P=0.016). Other complications were not different in the two groups. The mean time of gas passage, defecation, BS auscultation, and the duration of postoperative hospitalization did not have meaningful differences in the two groups. The need for placing/replacing the NG tube was the same for both groups.
                The routine application of NG tubes after surgery is not recommended for all patients. We suggest that NG tubes should be used according to the specific problems of each patient. nan To evaluate the effect of tube decompression of the stomach after elective colorectal operations, 97 patients were randomly allocated to postoperative treatment with or without nasogastric tubes. Flatus passed earlier in the patient group without tubes. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups with respect to duration and severity of postoperative paralysis, as measured by occurrence and duration of nausea and vomiting, postoperative peroral fluid intake and time for defecation. The frequencies of postoperative complications were small in both groups and without any difference between groups. Tube decompression of the stomach does not relieve intestinal paralysis after elective colorectal operations. Tube decompression should be used only in patients with paralytic ileus. The value of routine nasogastric tube (NGT) decompression after elective hepatic resection has not been investigated.
                Of 200 patients who had elective hepatic resection, including 68 who had previously had colorectal surgery, 100 were randomized to NGT decompression, where the NGT was left in place after surgery until the passage of flatus or stool, and 100 to no decompression, where the NGT was removed at the end of the operation.
                There was no difference between patients who had NGT decompression and those who did not in terms of overall surgical complications (15.0 versus 19.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.451) medical morbidity (61.0 versus 55.0 per cent; P = 0.391), in-hospital mortality (3.0 versus 2.0 per cent; P = 0.640), duration of ileus (mean(s.d.) 4.3(1.5) versus 4.5(1.7) days; P = 0.400) or length of hospital stay (14.2(8.5) versus 15.8(10.8) days; P = 0.220). Twelve patients randomized to no NGT decompression required reinsertion of the tube 3.9(1.9) days after surgery. Previous abdominal surgery had no influence on the need for NGT reinsertion. Severe discomfort was recorded in 21 patients in the NGT group and premature removal of the tube was required in 19. Pneumonia (13.0 versus 5.0 per cent; P = 0.047) and atelectasis (81 versus 67 per cent; P = 0.043) were significantly more common in the NGT group.
                Routine NGT decompression after elective hepatectomy had no advantages. Its use was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary complications.
                (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. To find out if routine nasogastric tube decompression is necessary after radical gastrectomy with systematic extensive lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer.
                Prospective randomised trial.
                Surgical Department, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.
                74 patients with gastric cancer including 11 with gastric outlet obstruction who underwent radical distal gastrectomy.
                After operation, 37 patients were randomised to receive nasogastric intubation and 37 not to have it.
                Morbidity, mortality, and speed of recovery.
                No patient died after operation. The groups were comparable for the day of starting oral diet, rate of reinsertion of nasogastric tube and morbidity. Patients who were not intubated mobilised more quickly, and spent less time in hospital. Only one of seven patients with gastric outlet obstruction who had not been intubated needed to be so.
                Routine postoperative nasogastric decompression is unnecessary after radical gastrectomy even in the presence of gastric outlet obstruction. Anastomotic disruption of the Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy after total gastrectomy is an infrequent complication that may lead to severe morbidity and mortality. Consequently, a nasojejunal tube (NJT) is frequently placed when this operation is performed. However, no studies have compared routine vs no placement of an NJT in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer, to our knowledge.
                Randomized controlled trial to assess the need for routine nasojejunal decompression after total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy in patients with gastric cancer.
                Tertiary care centers.
                Two hundred thirty-seven patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer were randomly assigned to NJT placement (NJT group) or not (no-NJT group). The patients were monitored for postoperative complications, mortality, and postoperative course.
                Incidence of esophagojejunostomy leak.
                The rates of anastomotic leak were similar in both groups (6.9% and 5.8% for the NJT group and no-NJT group, respectively; P = .71), as were the rates of major postoperative complications (25.9% and 21.5%, respectively; P = .42) and overall postoperative mortality (0.9% and 0.8%, respectively; P = .50). There were no differences between the 2 groups in the mean+/-SD time to passage of flatus (4.6 +/- 1.3 and 4.5 +/- 1.7 days, respectively) or to starting a liquid diet (7.8 +/- 2.6 and 7.7 +/- 1.6 days, respectively), postoperative length of hospital stay (13.5 +/- 7.3 and 13.9 +/- 10.9 days, respectively), postoperative pain, or postoperative abdominal distention.
                Routine placement of an NJT after Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy is unnecessary in elective total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Nasogastric decompression following abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy or bypass, for 3-4 days, is a routine part of postoperative care in many centers. A prospective randomized study of 80 patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery was performed in order to determine the necessity of prolonged nasogastric decompression. Patients were divided evenly between removal of the nasogastric tube upon tracheal extubation and retention of the tube until the passage of flatus. Preoperative risk factors, aortic cross-clamp time, estimated blood loss, length of procedure, length of intensive care unit stay, numbers of days with nasogastric tube, number of days until clear liquid and regular diets commenced, and the length of hospital stay were recorded for all patients. There were no significant differences in any of the measured variables between the two groups. The length of hospital stay was similar in both groups and three patients in each group required a nasogastric tube or reinsertion of one. In conclusion, the routine postoperative use of nasogastric tubes for abdominal aortic procedures is unnecessary. To evaluate the effect of nasogastric decompression after extensive intra-abdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients.
                Over a 1-year period, 110 gynecologic oncology patients undergoing extensive intra-abdominal surgery were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of postoperative nasogastric tube versus intra-operative orogastric tube decompression.
                The nasogastric and orogastric groups were similar in age, case distribution, surgery length, and blood loss. The nasogastric group had significantly longer times to first passage of flatus and tolerance of a clear liquid diet than did the orogastric group. However, both groups were similar in time to tolerance of a regular diet and hospital stay. On average, the nasogastric tube was maintained for 3.2 +/- 2.1 days (range 1-8) after surgery. The average daily nasogastric output was 440 +/- 283 mL (range 68-1565). No patient in the orogastric group required a nasogastric tube postoperatively, but one patient in the nasogastric group had a nasogastric tube reinserted for recurrent nausea and vomiting. Use of a nasogastric tube led to significantly more subjective complaints, eg, ear pain, painful swallowing, and nasal soreness, but did not significantly reduce the incidence of abdominal distention or nausea and vomiting. Major complications, eg, pneumonia, atelectasis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and wound breakdown or infection, occurred equally in both groups. However, the incidence of febrile morbidity was significantly greater in the nasogastric group. There were no known anastamotic complications or aspirations in either group. Postoperative changes in hematological indices and electrolytes were comparable in both groups.
                Postoperative nasogastric tube decompression in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing extensive intra-abdominal surgery does not appear to provide any substantial benefit but significantly increases patient discomfort. As a result of this study, we have eliminated postoperative nasogastric decompression except in highly selected circumstances, such as extensive bowel surgery in patients with prior irradiation or substantial edema from bowel obstruction. nan Nasogastric decompression has been routinely used in most major abdominal operations to prevent the consequences of postoperative ileus. The aim of the present study was to assess the necessity for routine prophylactic nasogastric or nasojejunal decompression after gastrectomy.
                A prospective randomized trial included 84 patients undergoing elective partial or total gastrectomy. The patients were randomized to a group with a postoperative nasogastric or nasojejunal tube (Tube Group, n = 43) or to a group without a tube (No-tube Group, n = 41). Gastrointestinal function, postoperative course, and complications were assessed.
                No significant differences in postoperative mortality or morbidity, especially fistula or intra-abdominal sepsis, were observed between the groups. Passage of flatus (P < 0.01) and start of oral intake (P < 0.01) were significantly delayed in the Tube Group. Duration of postoperative perfusion (P = 0.02) and length of hospital stay (P = 0.03) were also significantly longer in the Tube Group. Rates of nausea and vomiting were similar in the two groups. Moderate to severe discomfort caused by the tube was observed in 72% of patients in the Tube Group. Insertion of a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube was necessary in 5 patients in the No-tube Group (12%).
                Routine prophylactic postoperative nasogastric decompression is unnecessary after elective gastrectomy. Despite some evidence that gastric decompression may be unnecessary after some abdominal operations and in the treatment of paralytic ileus, the use of nasogastric suction after extensive abdominal operations, particularly intestinal resection, remains a subject of some debate. In a randomized prospective trial, 52 patients with suture lines constructed in the gastrointestinal tract received no postoperative nasogastric drainage unless acute gastric dilation or copious vomiting developed postoperatively, while 45 similar patients were allocated to receive routine postoperative nasogastric aspiration. Only 12 patients in the nonintubated group required subsequent insertion of a nasogastric tube, while in the remaining 40, nasogastric drainage was avoided completely. Postoperative loss of fluid from the intestine was significantly greater in the patients undergoing routine nasogastric drainage, although the requirement for intravenous fluid therapy was the same in both groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative complications. Routine nasogastric aspiration after gastric or intestinal resection does not confer significant advantages to outweigh its discomfort and potential morbidity for patients and should be replaced by selective intubation when required postoperatively. This prospective, randomized controlled trial was undertaken to evaluate the effect of tube decompression of the stomach after surgical procedure on the digestive tract. One hundred and nine patients were randomly allocated to postoperative treatment with (57 patients) or without (52 patients) nasogastric tubes. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the duration of hospitalization, time to begin peroral fluid intake, occurrence of hiccups, vomiting, nausea, parotiditis, nasal septum necrosis, anastomotic leak and wound dehiscence. Moreover, abdominal distension, pyrosis, otalgia, dysphagia, odynophagia and atelectasis occurred more often in intubated patients as shown by chi-square analysis of the data with Yates correction, with the level of significance at p = less than 0.05. Tube decompression of the stomach does not relieve intestinal paralysis after digestive operations. These data seem to indicate that the routine prophylactic use of a nasogastric tube is unnecessary in gastrointestinal operations. Nasogastric tube (NGT) is routine employed after abdominal surgery still in our country and abroad too, but the patients' discomfort is severe and several serious complications were referred as related to its use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pros and cons of routine use of NGT in elective uncomplicated abdominal surgery.
                In order to evaluate the routine use of NGT we performed a prospective randomized trial on 100 patients who had elective uncomplicated abdominal surgery: 50 subjects had the early removal of NGT and in 50 patients it was maintained until passage of flatus/feces.
                The relevant differences between the two groups were the earlier passage of flatus and feces and the lower incidence of postoperative gastrectasy in the group where NGT was early removed. No statistical difference was recorded concerning the occurrence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension, complications and day of clinical release.
                The routine application of NGT in elective abdominal surgery could be omitted if the surgeon and nursing team are willing to renounce a useful tool in providing informations about the resolution of postoperative intestinal atony to the patient's benefit: in fact a severe discomfort due to the NGT was recorded in the 70% of our series. There is a widespread belief that nasogastric decompression in gastric cancer surgery allows better surgical field and leads to the reduction of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether gastric cancer surgery can be safely performed without nasogastric decompression. From March to June 2000, 119 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were randomized into either a tubeless group (n=56) or an intubated group (n=63). Exclusion criteria included a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and pyloric obstruction. No remarkable difference was found in the incidence of complications in the tubeless and intubated groups (mean 10.9%, p=0.945). The incidence of nasogastric tube insertion in the tubeless group was similar to the incidence of nasogastric tube reinsertion in the intubated group (p=0.747). Time to pass flatus was not different in the two groups (p=0.054), nor was the length of hospital stay (p=0.148). These results suggest that gastric cancer surgery can be performed safely without nasogastric decompression. In reports on earlier non-prospectively randomized trials the authors have claimed that early oral postoperative feeding is a unique benefit of laparoscopic surgery. On the other hand, some authors have suggested that early feeding could be tolerated by the majority of patients after elective open surgery.
                This prospective randomized study was undertaken to assess the feasibility and safety of immediate oral feeding in patients subjected to elective open colorectal surgery.
                This trial included 190 patients who underwent an elective colon or rectal operation. Patients were randomized after the operative procedure into one of two groups. Group I (n = 95): On the first evening after the operation, patients were allowed ab libitum intake of clear liquids; this continued until the first postoperative day at which time they progressed to a regular diet as desired. Group II (n = 95): In this group the nasogastric tube was removed when the surgeon considered that postoperative ileus had been resolved.
                Early oral intake was tolerated by 79.6% of the patients in the first 4 days in group I; there were no differences between the two groups from the 4th day on. The incidence of vomiting and nasogastric tube insertion (21.5%) was higher in patients in group I than in those in group II. The time until the first bowel movement was 4.3 days in group I and 4.7 days in group II. Complications appeared in 17.3% of the patients in group I and in 19.3% in group II.
                This study has objectively demonstrated that early oral feeding is feasible and safe in patients who have elective colorectal surgery. In a previous, prospective, randomized study of the use of nasogastric tubes in patients undergoing elective abdominal colorectal surgery, we found that patients who did not have nasogastric (NG) decompression postoperatively had a significantly higher rate of abdominal distention, nausea, and vomiting. Patients from that study have now been followed for a median duration of 5.3 years to evaluate whether this elevation in perioperative intra-abdominal pressure would subsequently lead to an increased incidence of incisional hernia.
                Of the 251 patients who received NG decompression, 8 (3.2 percent) developed incisional hernias compared with 15 (6.6 percent) of 229 patients who were not decompressed (P = 0.085).
                The increase in postoperative abdominal distention and vomiting that occurs in patients who do not receive NG decompression does not lead to a significantly increased incidence of incisional hernia. Furthermore, we continue to support avoidance of routine prophylactic postoperative nasogastric decompression in uncomplicated, elective abdominal colorectal surgery. To determine which type of patient should receive routine postoperative nasogastric decompression (NGD), we observed 76 patients who were randomized into two groups: those who received routine NGD (n = 39) and those who received selective NGD (n = 37). Eighteen patients in the selective NGD group never required intubation, while 19 did require intubation within a mean of 3 days after surgery. In both groups, tubes remained in place for a mean of 4.7 days. The routine NGD group had a 2.5% incidence of emesis, while the selective NGD group had a 51% incidence of emesis. The return of bowel function, return to a regular diet, and postoperative length of hospital stay were similar in both groups. The patients in the selective NGD group who did not require intubation had a shorter postoperative stay. Fifty-eight percent of patients in the selective NGD group who required intubation had had major vascular or retroperitoneal dissections. These data support selective use of NGD in general surgical patients and routine use of NGD for patients having major retroperitoneal or vascular procedures.