A meta-analysis of selective versus routine nasogastric decompression after elective laparotomy

M L Cheatham, W C Chapman, S P Key, J L Sawyers, M L Cheatham, W C Chapman, S P Key, J L Sawyers

Abstract

Objective: A meta-analysis of all published clinical trials comparing selective versus routine nasogastric decompression was performed in an attempt to evaluate the need for nasogastric decompression after elective laparotomy.

Background: Many studies have suggested that routine nasogastric decompression is unnecessary after elective laparotomy and may be associated with an increased incidence of complications. Despite these reports, many surgeons continue to practice routine nasogastric decompression, believing that its use significantly decreases the risk of postoperative nausea, vomiting, aspiration, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak.

Methods: A comprehensive search of the English language medical literature was performed to identify all published clinical trials evaluating nasogastric decompression. Twenty-six trials (3964 patients) met inclusion criteria. The outcome data extracted from each trial were subsequently "pooled" and analyzed for significant differences using the Mantel-Haenszel estimation of combined relative risk.

Results: Fever, atelectasis, and pneumonia were significantly less common and days to first oral intake were significantly fewer in patients managed without nasogastric tubes. Meta-analysis based on study quality revealed significantly fewer pulmonary complications, but significantly greater abdominal distension and vomiting in patients managed without nasogastric tubes. Routine nasogastric decompression did not decrease the incidence of any other complication.

Conclusions: Although patients may develop abdominal distension or vomiting without a nasogastric tube, this is not associated with an increase in complications or length of stay. For every patient requiring insertion of a nasogastric tube in the postoperative period, at least 20 patients will not require nasogastric decompression. Routine nasogastric decompression is not supported by meta-analysis of the literature.

References

    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1978 Mar;21(2):98-100
    1. Arch Surg. 1962 Nov;85:844-51
    1. Am J Surg. 1987 Dec;154(6):640-2
    1. Br Med J. 1962 Jun 23;1(5294):1736-7
    1. Can J Anaesth. 1993 Apr;40(4):325-8
    1. Am J Surg. 1957 Aug;94(2):257-9; discussion, 259-61
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1991 Sep;73(5):291-4
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1955 Sep;101(3):275-9
    1. J Postgrad Med. 1985 Apr;31(2):102-4
    1. Arch Surg. 1971 Apr;102(4):248-50
    1. Can J Surg. 1992 Dec;35(6):629-32
    1. Am J Surg. 1980 Jun;139(6):849-50
    1. Control Clin Trials. 1981 May;2(1):31-49
    1. Surgery. 1972 Jan;71(1):132-5
    1. Northwest Med. 1961 Apr;60:387-91
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992 Apr;174(4):317-20
    1. Can J Surg. 1992 Dec;35(6):625-8
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Aug;107(2):195-203
    1. Am Heart J. 1979 Nov;98(5):638-41
    1. Ann Surg. 1956 Sep;144(3):475-86
    1. Br J Surg. 1972 Aug;59(8):605-8
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1984 Jun;158(6):557-60
    1. Ann Surg. 1989 Jun;209(6):670-3; discussion 673-5
    1. Can J Surg. 1992 Dec;35(6):577-8
    1. Am J Surg. 1977 Jun;133(6):729-32
    1. Ann Surg. 1985 Feb;201(2):233-6
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1984 Apr;158(4):354-8
    1. Am J Surg. 1979 Jun;137(6):775-9
    1. Afr J Med Med Sci. 1979 Sep-Dec;8(3-4):85-8
    1. JAMA. 1988 Mar 18;259(11):1685-9
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1965 Aug;121:351-2
    1. Am J Surg. 1967 Apr;113(4):494-7
    1. Am J Surg. 1985 May;149(5):620-2
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1958 Aug;107(2):247-50
    1. Ann Surg. 1985 Sep;202(3):361-6
    1. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1985 Apr;30(2):97-100
    1. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1983;72(2):47-49
    1. Am J Surg. 1977 Mar;133(3):312-4
    1. Br J Surg. 1992 Nov;79(11):1127-31
    1. Am J Surg. 1965 Sep;110:424-9
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Aug;107(2):224-33
    1. South Med J. 1977 Sep;70(9):1070-1
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986 May;29(5):295-9
    1. Am Surg. 1989 Jul;55(7):413-6
    1. Am Surg. 1988 Nov;54(11):672-5
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963 Sep;117:294-6
    1. Am Surg. 1987 Jan;53(1):50-3
    1. Acta Chir Scand. 1984;150(3):251-3
    1. Ann Surg. 1964 May;159:807-18
    1. Aust Clin Rev. 1987 Sep;7(26):159-61
    1. N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 19;316(8):450-5
    1. Am J Surg. 1970 Oct;120(4):511
    1. Br J Clin Pract. 1990 Dec;44(12):552-6

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe