Simple feeding jejunostomy technique for postoperative nutrition after major upper gastrointestinal resections

Experience with a simplified feeding jejunostomy technique for enteral nutrition following major visceral operations

Background

Background: Perioperative nutrition support has been shown to impact on outcomes for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Postoperative benefits of feeding tubes must be weighed against morbidity related to placement and use. A simplified jejunostomy tube technique was evaluated for outcomes.

Methods

A 16-Fr rubber tube is secured at the jejunal entry site without Witzel tunnel, followed by a continuous, circumferential and alternating suture between jejunal wall and parietal peritoneum. Prospectively collected data were analyzed.

Results

The technique was performed in 343 of 803 major hepatopancreatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal (GI) resections (43%). Of these patients (male =57%, median age: 65.8 years, range, 24.0-98.0 years), 89% had a cancer diagnosis. The procedures included pancreatectomy (n=189, 55%), gastrectomy (n=109, 32%), esophagectomy (n=19, 6%) and others (n=26, 7%). The operative intent was curative in 78%, palliative in 10%, or combined in 12% of patients. Postoperative morbidity rate was 40%, with 19 lethal events (5.5%), and a median length of stay of 10 days (range, 4-111 days). Tube feeds were administered in 139 patients (41%), and in 17% continued beyond discharge. Use of the feeding tube was linked to treatment interval, length of stay, major complication grade (all at P<0.0001), metastatic stage (P=0.0007) and noncurative intent (P=0.001). Tube feeds beyond discharge were associated with time interval (P<0.0001), length of stay (P=0.0006) and noncurative intent (P=0.014). Tube-specific events in 38 patients (11%) were all minor, without any intraabdominal leak, infection or obstruction.

Conclusions

The technique described is safe and expedient, and the overall tube-related morbidity is low. This procedure can be recommended in cases at risk for major morbidity and nutrition support needs.

Current status of management of malignant disease: current management of gastric cancer

Despite a continually decreasing incidence trend, gastric cancer remains a high-risk malignancy. Symptoms are often unspecific, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the key modality for diagnosing early and intermediate-stage disease. Surgeons play a critical role in guiding and managing multiple aspects of gastric cancer diagnosis and care. Potentially curable gastric adenocarcinoma has to be free of distant metastasis and should be staged through endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography. Early (T1N0) gastric cancer can be considered for endosopic mucosal resection or submucosal dissection. All other M0 stage groups should be evaluated for preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation followed by resection through a multidisciplinary approach. Laparoscopic staging, complete (R0) resection, and extended lymphadenectomy (D2 dissection) are critical operative components that optimize curability during gastrectomy. The morbidity potential after gastrectomy remains high; splenectomy and distal pancreatectomy should be avoided if possible to minimize postoperative complications. Laparoscopic gastric cancer resections are increasingly pursued and have not shown disadvantages to open gastrectomy as long as oncologic principles are followed. For the palliation of specific symptoms in patients with incurable gastric cancer, operative interventions should be applied selectively if less invasive modalities are insufficient and only if a meaningful benefit can be expected from a resection or bypass procedure. Prophylactic total gastrectomy should be considered for individuals at risk for hereditary diffuse-type gastric cancer through germline E-cadherin gene mutations. Surgeons engaging in gastric cancer care are expected to provide specialty expertise in order to plan and deliver appropriate care, minimize postoperative morbidity, and optimize resulting survival.

An assessment of feeding jejunostomy tube placement at the time of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy tubes (J-tube) are often placed during gastrectomy for cancer to decrease malnutrition and promote delivery of adjuvant therapy. We hypothesized that J-tubes actually are associated with increased complications and do not improve nutritional status nor increase rates of adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-two patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database that underwent gastric resection for gastric adenocarcinoma between 1/00 and 3/11 at one institution. Pre- and postoperative nutritional status and relevant intraoperative and postoperative parameters were examined.

RESULTS

Median age was 64 years (range 23-85). Forty-six (35%) underwent a total and 86 (65%) a subtotal gastrectomy. J-tubes were placed in 66 (50%) patients, 34 of whom underwent a subtotal and 32 a total gastrectomy. Preoperative nutritional status was similar between J-tube and no J-tube groups as measured by serum albumin (3.5 vs. 3.4 g/dL). Tumor grade, T, N, and overall stage were similar between groups. J-tube placement was associated with increased postop complications (59% vs. 41%, P = 0.04) and infectious complications (36% vs. 17%, P = 0.01), of which majority were surgical site infections. J-tubes were associated with prolonged length of stay (13 vs. 11 days; P = 0.05). There was no difference in postoperative nutritional status as measured by 30, 60, and 90-day albumin levels and the rate of receiving adjuvant therapy was similar between groups (J-tube: 61%, no J-tube: 53%, P = 0.38). Multivariate analyses revealed J-tubes to be associated with increased postop complications (HR: 4.8; 95% CI: 1.3-17.7; P = 0.02), even when accounting for tumor stage and operative difficulty and extent. Subset analysis revealed J-tubes to have less associated morbidity after total gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

J-tube placement after gastrectomy for gastric cancer may be associated with increased postoperative complications with no demonstrable advantage in receiving adjuvant therapy. Routine use of J-tubes after subtotal gastrectomy may not be justified, but may be selectively indicated in patients undergoing total gastrectomy. A prospective trial is needed to validate these results.

Pancreatoduodenectomy with or without pyloric preservation: a clinical outcomes comparison

Pyloric preservation (PP) can frequently be performed at the time of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), although some reports have linked it to inferior outcomes such as delayed gastric emptying (DGE). We reviewed records in a single-surgeon practice to assess outcomes after PD with or without PP. There were 133 PDs with 67 PPPDs and 66 PDs. Differences between PPPD and PD groups included cancer frequency, tumor size, OR time, blood loss, and transfusion rate. However, postoperative morbidity rate and grade, NG tube duration, NGT reinsertion rate, DGE, and length of stay were similar. There was no difference among patients with pancreatic cancer. No detrimental outcomes are associated with pyloric preservation during PD. Greater intraoperative ease and superior survival in the PPPD group are due to confounding, tumor-related variables in this nonrandomized comparison. Nevertheless, we intend to continue the use of PP with our technique in patients who meet the stated criteria.