The necessity of pyloric drainage in esophagectomies: protocol of a meta-analysis and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Esophageal carcinoma is the 8th most common malignant tumour in the world with more than 600 000 cases (3.1% of all) and it is the 6th most common reason of tumour mortality, causing more than 500 000 deaths (5.5% of all) annually. The 1, 3 and 5 year-prevalence are 2.4%, 1.6% and 1.3% respectively [1].

The 5-year survival is still low in patients with tumours, which is 19% in the USA [2] and 12% in Europe [3]. The outcome of the surgical treatment depends on the stage of the tumour, the patient’s condition, and the skill of the surgeon [4], therefore the outcomes may vary.

The 8th edition of UICC-AJCC TNM Classification suggests to treat esophageal cancer in the stage of I-IIB by esophagectomy [5]. For a long time, intraoperative pyloric drainages were routine procedures during elective esophagectomies in esophageal carcinoma, to protect the patients from postoperative complications of anastomosis insufficiency, aspiration, gastric emptying. There are some articles in the literature investigating the effects of pyloric drainage procedure, but there is no clear conclusion about the usefulness of intraoperative pyloroplasty and some limitations arise [6-8].

The question of this meta-analysis is whether pyloric drainage is preferable compared to the lack of pyloric drainage during elective esophagectomies in patients suffering from esophageal cancer, investigating mortality, anastomosis leakage, respiratory morbidity, vomiting, gastric emptying time.

Methods

Quality assessment

To assess the risk of bias and quality of results we will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2, and GRADE approach respectively.

The work process to be performed is presented in the following schematic diagram (Figure1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Discussion

During elective esophageal surgeries in patients with esophageal carcinoma, pyloroplasty following esophagectomy was a routine procedure for a long time [10, 11], but nowadays minimal invasive procedures become increasingly available, therefore, and based on previous works intraoperative pyloroplasty may not be associated with benefits.

Pyloroplasty itself is an additional intervention, thus it can prolong the operation time, and it can be associated with general perioperative complications, therefore the question of the necessity of the pyloroplasty arises again.

Minimal invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has many advantages, therefore is becoming more widespread. Comparison of laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, totally minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy shows decreased perioperative morbidity and hospitalization time against the open surgery. MIE is not detrimental even to perioperative mortality [12].

If the symptom of gastric stasis occurs, balloon dilatation, pyloric bouginage, endoscopic myotomy, botulinum toxin injection, erythromycin medication or per-oral gastric pyloromyotomy (GPOP) [10, 13-16] can be performed. All these new postoperative methods are safe and accessible procedures become more popular.

The topic is becoming more popular in the literature recently. Between the pyloroplasty and the control groups, Arya et al. [6], Gaur et al. [8] and Khan et al. [11] could not show significant difference in most outcomes in their work, however this research had some limitations, due to the small number of patients and heterogeneity of the definitions of outcomes in the enrolled studies.

We plan to investigate the question again, with rigorous inclusion and selection criteria enrolling only randomized controlled trials, using multiple data bases with the most specific search key.

We suspect that clear significant differences will be shown by using appropriate statistical analysis. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2, and GRADE approach we will perform to estimate the risk of bias and quality of results.

Our dissemination plan is to publish our results to peer-reviewed high-quality journals.