Purpose: In treating carcinoma of the esophagus, a gastric drainage procedure seems to be necessary with esophagogastrostomies because of the inevitable incidental bilateral truncal vagotomy which occurs during the esophagectomy. There are
potential hazards with a pyloroplasty such as jeopardizing the blood supply to the mobilized stmach, shortening its length for substitution, leakage, dumping syndrome, and bile reflux gastritis. The aims of the study are to compare the
postoperative
outcome of patients with and without pyloroplasty after an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and to evaluate the necessity of pyloroplasty in the vagotomized intrathoracic stomach after esophageal surgery.
Methods: During the years 1996 to 2001, 23 patients with carcinoma of the esophagus underwent an esophagectomy followed by esophagogastrostomy with or without pyloroplasty. The medical records of the patients were evaluated
retrospectively.
Results: There were no statiscally significant differences between the pyloroplasty group and the no-pyloroplasty group with regards to the average hospital stay, resumption of oral feeding, removal of the nasogastric tube, and the daily
gastric
drainage.
Conclusion: Postoperative symptomatic evaluation of patients who had esophageal cancer and underwent an esoph-agectomy and an esophagogastrostomy, with or without pyloroplasty supports the concept that the drainage procedure is unnecessary
in the
gastric replacement of the esophagus.
|