Routine Nasogastric Tubes Are Not Required Following Cystectomy With Urinary Diversion: A Comparative Analysis of 430 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postoperative nasogastric tube (NGT) use has been shown to increase postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing nonurological abdominal surgery. We examine the omission of NGTs as a method of decreasing postoperative gastrointestinal complications and hospital stay in patients undergoing cystectomy with urinary diversion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1983 and December 2001, 430 patients underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion at our institution. We retrospectively compared patients who received postoperative NGTs with those who did not with regard to gastrointestinal recovery time, gastrointestinal complications and hospital stay. RESULTS: After correcting for confounding factors using ANCOVA the time to first bowel sounds, time to first flatus and the duration of hospitalization were shorter in patients not receiving NGTs (p = 0.006, 0.001 and 0.032, respectively). Omitting NGTs did not increase the risk of ileus, bowel obstruction, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage or aspiration pneumonia and it did not result in more frequent postoperative NGT placement. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that gastric decompression with NGTs following cystectomy with urinary diversion may prolong gastrointestinal recovery, which may be a factor leading to increased duration of hospitalization. We propose that postoperative NGTs should not be used routinely in the management of cystectomy cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".