Pyloric Drainage (Pyloroplasty) or No Drainage in Gastric Reconstruction after Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: 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.
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 | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".