Sapkota Ranjan, Bhandari Ramesh Singh
Department of Surgery, Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal.
JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2013 Jul-Sep;52(191):437-42.
Post-operative nasogastric intubation after emergency laparotomy is a common practice in many centers, with the intent of hastening the return of bowel function, relieving gastrointestinal discomfort, reducing various post-operative complications and reducing hospital stay. However, bowel rest and gastric decompression have been re-examined in the light of more recent data. Many studies and meta-analyses over the last 50 years have challenged the routine use of nasogastric tubes after laparotomy. The objective of this study is to evaluate the need for routine nasogastric decompression after emergency laparotomy.
A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted for 12 months (May 1, 2007 to Apr 30, 2008) in the Department of Surgery, Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, after ethical approval. Patients were enrolled as per criteria (Box 1), and subsequently allocated by simple randomization into two groups: Group 1 and Group 2. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy for perforation peritonitis, intestinal obstruction and abdominal trauma were randomized to two groups - with or without nasogastric tube after surgery. Gastric upset, return of bowel function and postoperative complications were compared.
Total of 115 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of gastric upset (P: 0.38), wound complications (P: 0.30), respiratory complications (P: 0.30) and anastomotic leak (P: 0.64) between two groups. Bowel function returned in comparable times in both groups (correlation coefficient: 0.14; P: 0.54). Nasogastric tube had to be reinserted in three patients in the group with nasogastric decompression postoperatively, and four in the group without (P: 0.43). Thus, routine nasogastric decompression neither prevented the development of gastrointestinal discomfort nor precluded the need for tube replacement once it was discontinued. For every patient who required post-operative nasogastric decompression, at least 14 patients were spared one. Mean hospital stay was significantly more in the decompressed group (7.52 days; correlation coefficient: 0.22; P<0.05).
This study has shown that the prophylactic nasogastric decompression following emergency laparotomy is ineffective in achieving any of the intended goals.
complications; decompression; emergency laparotomy; flatus; nasogastric tube; prophylactic.
急诊剖腹手术后进行术后鼻胃插管在许多中心是一种常见做法,目的是加速肠道功能恢复、缓解胃肠道不适、减少各种术后并发症并缩短住院时间。然而,鉴于最新数据,肠道休息和胃肠减压已被重新审视。过去50年中的许多研究和荟萃分析对剖腹手术后常规使用鼻胃管提出了质疑。本研究的目的是评估急诊剖腹手术后常规鼻胃减压的必要性。
在获得伦理批准后,于2007年5月1日至2008年4月30日在特里布万大学教学医院外科进行了一项为期12个月的前瞻性随机对照试验。患者按标准(方框1)入组,随后通过简单随机化分为两组:第1组和第2组。因穿孔性腹膜炎、肠梗阻和腹部创伤接受急诊剖腹手术的患者被随机分为两组——术后使用或不使用鼻胃管。比较胃部不适、肠道功能恢复情况和术后并发症。
共有115名患者符合纳入标准。两组在胃部不适发生率(P:0.38)、伤口并发症(P:0.30)、呼吸并发症(P:0.30)和吻合口漏(P:0.64)方面无统计学显著差异。两组肠道功能恢复时间相当(相关系数:0.14;P:0.54)。术后接受鼻胃减压的组中有3名患者需要重新插入鼻胃管,未接受鼻胃减压的组中有4名患者需要重新插入(P:0.43)。因此,常规鼻胃减压既不能预防胃肠道不适的发生,也不能在停止使用后避免再次插管的需要。每有1名需要术后鼻胃减压的患者,至少有14名患者可避免使用。减压组的平均住院时间明显更长(7.52天;相关系数:0.22;P<0.05)。
本研究表明,急诊剖腹手术后预防性鼻胃减压在实现任何预期目标方面均无效。
并发症;减压;急诊剖腹手术;排气;鼻胃管;预防性