↓ Skip to main content

Pylorus drainage procedures in thoracoabdominal esophagectomy – a single-center experience and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pylorus drainage procedures in thoracoabdominal esophagectomy – a single-center experience and review of the literature
Published in
BMC Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12893-018-0347-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Fritz, Katharina Feilhauer, André Schaudt, Hansjörg Killguss, Eduard Esianu, René Hennig, Jörg Köninger

Abstract

Pylorotomy and pyloroplasty in thoracoabdominal esophagectomy are routinely performed in many high-volume centers to prevent delayed gastric emptying (DGE) due to truncal vagotomy. Currently, controversy remains regarding the need for these practices. The present study aimed to determine the value and role of pyloric drainage procedures in esophagectomy with gastric replacement. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed for all consecutive patients who underwent thoracoabdominal resection of the esophagus between January 2009 and December 2016 at the Katharinenhospital in Stuttgart, Germany. Clinicopathologic features and surgical outcomes were evaluated with a focus on postoperative nutrition and gastric emptying. The study group included 170 patients who underwent thoracoabdominal esophageal resection with a gastric conduit using the Ivor Lewis approach. The median age of the patients was 64 years. Most patients were male (81%), and most suffered from adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (75%). The median hospital stay was 20 days, and the 30-day hospital death rate was 2.9%. According to the department standard, pylorotomy, pyloroplasty, or other pyloric drainage procedures were not performed in any of the patients. Overall, 28/170 patients showed clinical signs of DGE (16.5%). In the literature, the rate of DGE after thoracoabdominal esophagectomy is reported to be approximately 15%, even with the use of pyloric drainage procedures. This rate is comparable to that reported in the present series in which no pyloric drainage procedures were performed. Therefore, we believe that pyloric drainage procedures may be unwarranted in thoracoabdominal esophagectomy. However, future randomized trials are needed to ultimately confirm this supposition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 48%
Unspecified 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,932,482
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#531
of 1,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,859
of 331,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,336 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.