Benefits versus risks: a prospective audit. Feeding jejunostomy during esophagectomy. World J Surg. 2009;33:1432-1438. [PMID: 19387726 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0019-1]

Endoscopic negative-pressure treatment : From management of complications to pre-emptive active reflux drainage in abdomino-thoracic esophageal resection-A new safety concept for esophageal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Early postoperative reflux (PR) can compromise anastomotic healing after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) and poses a risk for aspiration. Anastomotic insufficiency is the most threatening surgical complication. We present the protective method of pre-emptive active reflux drainage (PARD) with simultaneous enteral feeding. We report our experience with this new safety concept in esophageal surgery in a cohort of 43 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For PARD we use a double lumen open porous film drainage (dOFD). To create the dOFD, the gastric tube of a Trelumina probe (Freka®Trelumina, Fresenius) is coated with a double-layered open-pore drainage film (Suprasorb®CNP drainage film, Lohmann & Rauscher) over a length of 25 cm. The dOFD is endoscopically inserted into the tubular stomach intraoperatively after completion of the anastomosis. Continuous negative pressure is applied with an electronic pump (-125 mm Hg). The PR is continuously aspirated completely and the stomach and anastomotic region are decompressed. At the same time, nutrition is delivered via an integrated intestinal tube. Depending on the results of the endoscopic control after 5 days, PARD is either continued or terminated.

RESULTS

During the observation period (2017-2023), PARD was used in all patients (n = 43) with ILE. The healing rate under PARD was 100% and healing was observed in all anastomoses. No additional endoscopic procedures or surgical revisions of the anastomoses were required. The median duration of PARD was 8 days (range 4-21). We observed problems in the healing of the anastomosis in 20 of 43 patients (47%) for whom we defined endoscopic criteria for at-risk anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that PARD has a strong protective effect on anastomotic healing and may reduce the risk of anastomotic insufficiency. The integrated feeding tube of the dOFD allows early postoperative enteral feeding while simultaneously applying negative pressure. PARD appears to prevent the negative consequences of impaired anastomotic healing.

Contemporary Perioperative Nutritional Care

Over the last decades, surgical complication rates have fallen drastically. With the introduction of new surgical techniques coupled with specific evidence-based perioperative care protocols, patients today run half the risk of complications compared with traditional care. Many patients who in previous years needed weeks of hospital care now recover and can leave in days. These remarkable improvements are achieved by using nutritional stress-reducing care elements for the surgical patient that reduce metabolic stress and allow for the return of gut function. This new approach to nutritional care and how it is delivered as an integral part of enhancing recovery after surgery are outlined in this review. We also summarize the new and increased understanding of the effects of the routes of delivering nutrition and the role of the gut, as well as the current recommendations for artificial nutritional support.

[Endoscopic negative pressure treatment : From management of complications to pre-emptive active reflux drainage in abdominothoracic esophageal resection-A new safety concept for esophageal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Early postoperative reflux (PR) can compromise anastomotic healing after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) and poses a risk for aspiration. Anastomotic insufficiency is the most threatening surgical complication. We present the protective method of pre-emptive active reflux drainage (PARD) with simultaneous enteral feeding. We report our experience with this new safety concept in esophageal surgery in a cohort of 43 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For PARD we use a double lumen open porous film drainage (dOFD). To create the dOFD, the gastric tube of a Trelumina probe (Freka®Trelumina, Fresenius) is coated with a double-layered open-pore drainage film (Suprasorb®CNP drainage film, Lohmann & Rauscher) over a length of 25 cm. The dOFD is endoscopically inserted into the tubular stomach intraoperatively after completion of the anastomosis. Continuous negative pressure is applied with an electronic pump (-125 mm Hg). The PR is continuously aspirated completely and the stomach and anastomotic region are decompressed. At the same time, nutrition is delivered via an integrated intestinal tube. Depending on the results of the endoscopic control after 5 days, PARD is either continued or terminated.

RESULTS

During the observation period (2017-2023), PARD was used in all patients (n = 43) with ILE. The healing rate under PARD was 100% and healing was observed in all anastomoses. No additional endoscopic procedures or surgical revisions of the anastomoses were required. The median duration of PARD was 8 days (range 4-21). We observed problems in the healing of the anastomosis in 20 of 43 patients (47%) for whom we defined endoscopic criteria for at-risk anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that PARD has a strong protective effect on anastomotic healing and may reduce the risk of anastomotic insufficiency. The integrated feeding tube of the dOFD allows early postoperative enteral feeding while simultaneously applying negative pressure. PARD appears to prevent the negative consequences of impaired anastomotic healing.

Feeding gastrostomy and duodenostomy using the round ligament of the liver versus conventional feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis

Esophageal cancer patients require enteral nutritional support after esophagectomy. Conventional feeding enterostomy to the jejunum (FJ) is occasionally associated with small bowel obstruction because the jejunum is fixed to the abdominal wall. Feeding through an enteral feeding tube inserted through the reconstructed gastric tube (FG) or the duodenum (FD) using the round ligament of the liver have been suggested as alternatives. This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between FG/FD and FJ. Studies published prior to May 2022 that compared FG or FD with FJ in cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy were identified via electronic literature search. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies met inclusion criteria to yield a total of 1687 patients. Compared with the FJ group, the odds of small bowel obstruction (OR 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.33), catheter site infection (OR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.51) and anastomotic leakage (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.89) were lower for the FG/FD group. Odds of pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, chylothorax and hospital mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter for the FG/FD group (median difference, -10.83; 95% CI, -18.55 to -3.11). FG and FD using the round ligament of the liver were associated with lower odds of small bowel obstruction, catheter site infection and anastomotic leakage than FJ in esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal and its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal approach in patients with oesophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Enterocutaneous fistula after removal of the jejunostomy tube leads to multiple problems, such as cosmetic problems, decreased quality of life, electrolyte imbalances, infectious complications, and increased medical costs. However, the risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula (REF) after button jejunostomy removal remain unclear. Therefore, in this study, we assessed the risk factors for REF after button jejunostomy removal in patients with oesophageal cancer and reported the surgical outcomes of the novel extraperitoneal approach (EPA) for REF closure.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 47 patients who underwent button jejunostomy removal after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. We assessed the risk factors for REF in these patients and reported the surgical outcomes of the novel EPA for REF closure at the International University of Health and Welfare Hospital between March 2013 and October 2021. The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of REF after removal of the button jejunostomy, which was assessed using a maintained database. The risk factors and outcomes of the EPA for REF closure were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

REFs occurred in 15 (31.9%) patients. In the univariate analysis, REF was significantly more common in patients with albumin level < 4.0 g/dL (p = 0.026), duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal (p = 0.003), and with a fistula < 15.0 mm (p = 0.002). The multivariate analysis revealed that a duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal (odds ratio [OR]: 7.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38-36.8; p = 0.019) and fistula < 15.0 mm (OR: 8.08; 95% CI: 1.50-43.6; p = 0.002) were independent risk factors for REF. EPA for REF closure was performed in 15 patients. The technical success rate of EPA was 88.2%. Of the 15 EPA procedures, fistula closure was achieved in 12 (80.0%). The complications of EPA (11.7%) were major leakages (n = 3) and for two of them, EPA procedure was re-performed, and closure of the fistula was finally achieved.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal and fistula < 15.0 mm are the independent risk factors for REF after button jejunostomy removal. EPA for REF closure is a novel, simple, and useful surgical option for patients with REF after oesophagectomy.

Long-Term Insufficiency of Oral Intake after Esophagectomy; Who Needs Intense Nutritional Support after Esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND

Patients with esophageal cancer are at a high risk of malnutrition after esophagectomy, and nutritional support may at times be required for several months following surgery. In this study, we aimed to clarify the clinical features and preoperative risk factors of patients with long-term insufficiency of oral intake after esophagectomy by evaluating the duration of feeding enterostomy placement.

METHODS

A total of 306 patients who underwent esophagectomy, reconstruction with gastric conduit, and feeding enterostomy creation were retrospectively reviewed. We analyzed the clinical features and preoperative risk factors for long-term placement of feeding enterostomy.

RESULTS

The feeding enterostomy tube was removed less than 90 days after esophagectomy in 234 patients (76.5%) (Short group), whereas 72 patients still needed enteral nutrition after 90 days (23.5%; Long group). Although severe malnutrition was observed more frequently in the long group compared with the short group (p=0.021), overall survival time was comparable between the groups (p=0.239). Multivariate analysis revealed that higher age (OR 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; p=0.021), poor performance status(OR 2.94; 95% CI, 1.10-7.87; p=0.032), and lower preoperative body weight(OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; p=0.009) were the independent variables predicting the long-time placement of feeding enterostomy.

CONCLUSION

Nutritional support via feeding enterostomy for more than 90 days after esophagectomy was required in 23.5% of patients. The elderly, poor performance status, and lower body weight were the independent preoperative factors for predicting the long-term placement of feeding enterostomy.

Comparison of laparoscopy versus mini-laparotomy for jejunostomy placement in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Optimal nutrition is challenging for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and often requires feeding tube placement prior to preoperative therapy. Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) placement via mini-laparotomy is technically easier to perform than laparoscopic FJ. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy FJ placement.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma receiving laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy FJ at a single tertiary referral center from 2000 to 2018. 30-day outcomes included complications, conversion to laparotomy, reoperation, length of stay, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 656 patients met the inclusion criteria and were studied. The majority of patients were male (68.1%) with a mean age of 60.6 years. The difference in surgical approach remained relatively stable over time. Overall, 82 (12.5%) patients experienced complications, and three (0.5%) patients died postoperatively. While readmission and conversion to open laparotomy did not differ between groups, overall complications (10.5% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.002), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications (4.0% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), length of stay (4.1 vs. 5.6 days, p < 0.001), and reoperation (0.9% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.002) favored the laparoscopic over mini-laparotomy group.

CONCLUSION

The current study helps clarify the risk of FJ placement in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma requiring nutritional support. Laparoscopic FJ placement has lower overall morbidity and length of stay compared to mini-laparotomy. However, caution is needed in preventing and identifying the rare causes of postoperative mortality that may be associated with laparoscopic FJ placement.

ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery

Early oral feeding is the preferred mode of nutrition for surgical patients. Avoidance of any nutritional therapy bears the risk of underfeeding during the postoperative course after major surgery. Considering that malnutrition and underfeeding are risk factors for postoperative complications, early enteral feeding is especially relevant for any surgical patient at nutritional risk, especially for those undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery. The focus of this guideline is to cover both nutritional aspects of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept and the special nutritional needs of patients undergoing major surgery, e.g. for cancer, and of those developing severe complications despite best perioperative care. From a metabolic and nutritional point of view, the key aspects of perioperative care include the integration of nutrition into the overall management of the patient, avoidance of long periods of preoperative fasting, re-establishment of oral feeding as early as possible after surgery, the start of nutritional therapy immediately if a nutritional risk becomes apparent, metabolic control e.g. of blood glucose, reduction of factors which exacerbate stress-related catabolism or impaired gastrointestinal function, minimized time on paralytic agents for ventilator management in the postoperative period, and early mobilization to facilitate protein synthesis and muscle function.

Vertical distance from navel as a risk factor for bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Placement of feeding jejunostomy (PFJ) during esophagectomy is an effective method to maintain adequate nutrition, but is associated with serious complications such as bowel obstruction and jejunal torsion. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the incidence, clinical features, and risk factors of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy (BOFJ) after PFJ.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 70 patients who underwent esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer and treated with PFJ between March 2013 and December 2019 in our hospital. Abdominal dissection was performed under hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) from March 2013 to March 2015, and was changed to complete laparoscopic surgery in April 2015. We compared patients with and without BOFJ, and the incidence of BOFJ was evaluated. The primary endpoint was incidence of BOFJ after PFJ.

Results

Six patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with BOFJ, all of whom were symptomatic and in the HALS group. In addition, 3 cases displayed histories of recurrent BOFJ (3, 3, and 5 times). Laparotomy was performed in all cases. Subgroup analysis of the HALS group showed a significant difference only in straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel as a significant pre- and perioperative factor (117 mm [101–130 mm] vs. 89 mm [51–150 mm], p < 0.001). Furthermore, dividing straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel into VD and HD, only VD differed significantly (107 mm [93–120 mm] vs. 79 mm [28–135 mm], p = 0.010), not HD (48 mm [40–59 mm] vs. 46 mm [22–60 mm], p = 0.199).

Conclusions

VD between the jejunostomy and navel was associated with BOFJ after PFJ with HALS esophagectomy. PFJ < 9 cm above the navel during HALS esophagectomy might effectively prevent BOFJ.

Needle Catheter Jejunostomy in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreato-Biliary Cancer-Impact on Nutritional and Clinical Outcome in the Early and Late Postoperative Period

The metabolic risk for patients undergoing abdominal cancer resection increases in the perioperative period and malnutrition may be observed. In order to prevent further weight loss, the guidelines recommend for high-risk patients the placement of a needle catheter jejunostomy (NCJ) for supplementing enteral feeding in the early and late postoperative period. Our aim was to evaluate the safety of NCJ placement and its potential benefits regarding the nutritional status in the postoperative course. We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer, such as esophageal, gastric, and pancreato-biliary cancer, and NCJ placement during the operation. The nutritional parameters body mass index (BMI), perioperative weight loss, phase angle measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and the clinical outcome were assessed perioperatively and during follow-up visits 1 to 3 months and 4 to 6 months after surgery. In 102 patients a NCJ was placed between January 2006 and December 2016. Follow-up visits 1 to 3 months and 4 to 6 months after surgery were performed in 90 patients and 88 patients, respectively. No severe complications were seen after the NCJ placement. The supplementing enteral nutrition via NCJ did not improve the nutritional status of the patients postoperatively. There was a significant postoperative decline of weight and phase angle, especially in the first to third month after surgery, which could be stabilized until 4-6 months after surgery. Placement of NCJ is safe. In patients with upper gastrointestinal and pancreato-biliary cancer, supplementing enteral nutrition during the postoperative course and continued after discharge may attenuate unavoidable weight loss and a reduction of body cell mass within the first six months.

Is the placement of jejunostomy tubes in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy associated with increased inpatient healthcare utilization? An analysis of the National Readmissions Database

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing esophagectomy often receive jejunostomy tubes (j-tubes) for nutritional supplementation. We hypothesized that j-tubes are associated with increased post-esophagectomy readmissions.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified esophagectomies for malignancy with (EWJ) or without (EWOJ) j-tubes using the 2010-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Outcomes include readmission, inpatient mortality, and complications. Outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Of 22,429 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 16,829 (75.0%) received j-tubes. Patients were similar in age and gender but EWJ were more likely to receive chemotherapy (24.2% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.01). EWJ was associated with decreased 180-day inpatient mortality (HR 0.72 [0.52-0.99]) but not with higher readmissions at 30- (15.2% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.16; HR 0.9 [0.77-1.05]) or 180 days (25.2% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.37; HR 0.94 [0.79-1.10]) or increased complications (p = 0.37). These results were confirmed in the PSM cohort.

CONCLUSION

J-tubes placed in the setting of esophagectomy do not increase inpatient readmissions or mortality.

The Optimal Feeding Enterostomy Creation During Esophagectomy to Reduce the Long-Term Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is commonly created during esophagectomy for postoperative enteral nutrition, it can be a cause of postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO). We introduced a technique of feeding enterostomy using the round ligament of the liver (FERL) to reduce SBO. In this study, we aimed to clarify the efficacy of FERL in reducing the postoperative SBO compared with FJ.

METHODS

We assessed 400 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction between 2011 and 2016, before and after the introduction of FERL (FJ, n = 200; FERL, n = 200). The cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy were compared between the FJ and the FERL groups.

RESULTS

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery was more frequent in the FERL group than in the FJ group (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in the FERL group were significantly less frequent than those in the FJ group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). When stratifying by the abdominal surgical approach, the cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in a laparoscopic approach were less frequent in the FERL group than those in the FJ group (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The FERL technique can reduce the incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Safety, feasibility, and effect of an enhanced nutritional support pathway including extended preoperative and home enteral nutrition in patients undergoing enhanced recovery after esophagectomy: a pilot randomized clinical trial

The aims of this pilot study are to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of conducting an enhanced nutritional support pathway including extended preoperative nutritional support and one month home enteral nutrition (HEN) for patients who underwent enhanced recovery after esophagectomy. We implemented extended preoperative nutritional support and one month HEN after discharge for patients randomized into an enhanced nutrition group and implemented standard nutritional support for patients randomized into a conventional nutrition group. Except the nutritional support program, both group patients underwent the same standardized enhanced recovery after surgery programs of esophagectomy based on published guidelines. Patients were assessed at preoperative day, postoperative day 7 (POD7), and POD30 for perioperative outcomes and nutritional status. To facilitate the determination of an effect size for subsequent appropriately powered randomized clinical trials and assess the effectiveness, the primary outcome we chose was the weight change before and after esophagectomy. Other outcomes including body mass index (BMI), lean body mass (LBM), appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI), nutrition-related complications, and quality of life (QoL) were also analyzed. The intention-to-treat analysis of the 50 randomized patients showed that there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. The weight (-2.03 ± 2.28 kg vs. -4.05 ± 3.13 kg, P = 0.012), BMI (-0.73 ± 0.79 kg/m2 vs. -1.48 ± 1.11 kg/m2, P = 0.008), and ASMI (-1.10 ± 0.37 kg/m2 vs. -1.60 ± 0.66 kg/m2, P = 0.010) loss of patients in the enhanced nutrition group were obviously decreased compared to the conventional nutrition group at POD30. In particular, LBM (48.90 ± 9.69 kg vs. 41.96 ± 9.37 kg, p = 0.031) and ASMI (7.56 ± 1.07 kg/m2 vs. 6.50 ± 0.97 kg/m2, P = 0.003) in the enhanced nutrition group were significantly higher compared to the conventional nutrition group at POD30, despite no significant change between pre- and postoperation. In addition, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 scores revealed that enhanced nutritional support improved the QoL of patients in physical function (75.13 ± 9.72 vs. 68.33 ± 7.68, P = 0.009) and fatigue symptom (42.27 ± 9.93 vs. 49.07 ± 11.33, P = 0.028) compared to conventional nutritional support. This pilot study demonstrated that an enhanced nutritional support pathway including extended preoperative nutritional support and HEN was feasible, safe, and might be beneficial to patients who underwent enhanced recovery after esophagectomy. An appropriately powered trial is warranted to confirm the efficacy of this approach.

Simplified percutaneous endoscopic transgastric conduit feeding jejunostomy for dysphagia after esophagectomy

Unexpected dysphagia is an important problem affecting life prognosis in patients who have undergone an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. For nutritional support in patients suffering from dysphagia after a previous esophagectomy, a simplified percutaneous endoscopic transgastric conduit feeding jejunostomy approach was developed that can be performed regardless of the patient's condition. The feasibility of this procedure in 25 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent three-stage esophagectomy with retrosternal gastric conduit reconstruction from April 2009 to December 2016 was evaluated retrospectively. Under fluoroscopy, a percutaneous endoscopic transgastric conduit feeding jejunostomy catheter (9 French) was introduced into the jejunum in the epigastric region using the Seldinger's technique. The following patient data were analyzed retrospectively: operating time, complications, reasons for oral intake difficulty, and clinical data describing patients' nutritional status before and 1 month after percutaneous endoscopic transgastric conduit jejunostomy treatment, such as serum albumin and clinical course. Median patients' age was 68 years (range 50-76 years). Indications for the procedure were late swallowing dysfunction (n = 12), early swallowing dysfunction secondary to surgical complication (n = 8), anastomotic leakage (n = 3), and anorexia (n = 2). Causes of late swallowing dysfunction were radiation injury (n = 8), advanced age (n = 2), or cerebral infarction (n = 2). The median operating time was 29 minutes (range 14-82 minutes). Four patients developed mild erosions at the stoma secondary to bile reflux along the side of the catheter. No patient experienced severe complications such as ileus and peritonitis. Patients were treated for a median of 160 days (range 18-3106 days) with percutaneous endoscopic transgastric conduit jejunostomy. Patient's serum albumin significantly increased from 2.8 to 3.3 g/dl in 1 month. Of the eight patients with early swallowing dysfunction, six successfully regained sufficient oral nutrition after receiving enteral feeding nutritional management. Although all except one late swallowing dysfunction patient could not discontinue tube feeding, five patients were long-term survivors at the time this report was written. This jejunostomy procedure is simple, safe, and useful for patients with unexpected dysphagia and accompanying malnutrition after esophagectomy.

ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease

The present guideline is the first of a new series of "practical guidelines" based on more detailed scientific guidelines produced by ESPEN during the last few years. The guidelines have been shortened and now include flow charts that connect the individual recommendations to logical care pathways and allow rapid navigation through the guideline. The purpose of the present practical guideline is to provide an easy-to-use tool to guide nutritional support and primary nutritional therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The guideline is aimed at professionals working in clinical practice, either in hospitals or in outpatient medicine, and treating patients with IBD. In 40 recommendations, general aspects of care in patients with IBD, and specific aspects during active disease and in remission are addressed. All recommendations are equipped with evidence grades, consensus rates, short commentaries and links to cited literature.

A simple, novel laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy technique to prevent bowel obstruction after esophagectomy: the "curtain method"

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a common treatment to support patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy. However, severe FJ-related complications, such as bowel obstruction, occasionally occur. We investigated the ability of our simple, novel FJ technique, the "curtain method," to prevent bowel obstruction.

METHODS

In laparoscopic surgery, the main mechanism of bowel obstruction involves torsion of the mesentery accompanied by migration of the intestine across the fixed FJ through the space surrounded by a triangle comprising the ligament of Treitz, fixed FJ, and spleen rather than adhesion. Our "curtain method" involves closure of this triangle zone with omentum, and the appearance of the lifted omentum resembles a curtain. Sixty patients treated with this modified FJ were retrospectively compared with 13 patients treated with conventional FJ in terms of the incidence of bowel obstruction, peritonitis, stoma site infection, and catheter obstruction.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, 60 patients underwent esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction accompanied by modified laparoscopic FJ. The median observation period, including the period after tube removal, was 644 days. No FJ-associated bowel obstruction, the prevention of which was the primary aim, occurred in any patient. Likewise, no peritonitis or dislodgement occurred. Eight patients (13%) developed a stoma site infection with granulation. The feeding tube became occluded in 11 patients (18%); however, a new feeding tube was reinserted under fluoroscopy for all of these patients. From 2003 to 2012, 13 patients underwent conventional FJ. The median observation period was 387 days. Three patients (23%) developed bowel obstruction by torsion 71 to 134 days after the first surgery, and all were treated by emergency operations. Other FJ-related complications were not different from those in the modified FJ group.

CONCLUSION

Our simple, novel technique, the "curtain method," for prevention of laparoscopic FJ-associated bowel obstruction after esophagectomy is a safe additional surgery.

Nutritional benefit of laparoscopic jejunostomy during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for obstructing esophageal cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) confers a survival benefit in esophageal carcinoma, but it is difficult to perform in patients who cannot receive enteral feeding due to an esophageal obstruction. In the current study, the nutritional benefit of laparoscopic jejunostomy (Lap-J) was evaluated in patients with NAC for obstructing esophageal cancer. A total of 91 patients with esophageal cancer who received NAC between 2009 and 2017 were included in the present study. Lap-J was performed prior to NAC in 15 patients (16.5%) with an obstructing tumor. Patients with NAC without Lap-J were used as the control group (n=76). Nutritional parameters and surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared retrospectively. In the patients with Lap-J, 14 of the 15 patients (93.3%) did not experience any procedure-associated complications. No mortalities were associated with Lap-J. Significant decreases in total serum protein, albumin, hemoglobin concentrations and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) occurred following NAC in the control but not in the Lap-J group. Serum albumin and the improved modified Glasgow prognostic score increased significantly after NAC in the Lap-J group but not in the control group. In conclusion, perioperative nutritional support with Lap-J was safe and effective in patients with NAC for obstructing esophageal cancer.

Feeding Jejunostomy Tube Placed during Esophagectomy: Is There an Effect on Postoperative Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) tubes are routinely placed during esophagectomy. However, their effect on immediate postoperative outcomes in this patient population is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of FJ tube placement during esophagectomy on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to evaluate the effect of FJ tube placement during esophagectomy on 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A propensity score-matched cohort was used to compare postoperative outcomes of patients with and without FJ tubes.

RESULTS

An FJ tube was placed in 45% of 2059 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The anastomotic leak rate was 13.5%. Patients with FJ tubes were more likely to have preoperative radiation therapy (59.6% vs 54.9%, p = 0.041), transhiatal esophagectomy (21.5% vs 19.2%, p = 0.012), a malignant diagnosis (93.2% vs 90.4%), and longer operative time (393 min vs 348 min, p < 0.001). In a case-matched cohort, mortality (2% vs 2.4%, p = 0.618) and severe morbidity (38.2% vs 34.6%, p = 0.128) were comparable between patients with and without FJ tubes. FJ tube placement was associated with higher overall morbidity (46% vs 38.6%, p = 0.002), superficial wound infection (6.3% vs 2.9%, p = 0.001), and return to the operating room (16.7% vs 12.5%, p = 0.016). In a subgroup of patients with anastomotic leak, FJ was associated with shorter hospital stay (20.1 days vs 24.3 days, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

These mixed findings support selective rather than routine FJ tube placement during esophagectomy.

Jejunostomy or nasojejunal tube after esophagectomy: a review of the literature

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer are a difficult to treat group of patients. At diagnosis they will present some degree of malnutrition in up to 80% and the causes are from multifactorial origin: the inability of food ingestion, advanced age, taste disturbances, and morbidity related to neoadjuvant treatment. In order to restaure the nutritional status, enteral nutritional support is preferable to parenteral support because of the risks of septic complications associated with venous catheters. During the postoperative period, the oral route is often inaccessible in these patients due to swallowing disorders and eventually mechanical ventilation, and if possible, often it does not provide sufficient caloric amounts for postoperative energy balance. For these reasons, it is usually recommended additional nutritional support. There are few studies in the literature that specifically address which is the most adequate route for enteral nutrition in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Nasojejunal catheters present a higher incidence of local complications, such as displacement and occlusion, whereas jejunostomy is more associated with reinterventions for the treatment of complications secondary to extravasation. Although there is weak evidence in the literature and a lack of randomized, prospective and multicenter studies evaluating the best enteral nutrition route in the postoperative period of esophagectomy, the use of the nasoenteric catheter seems to be adequate due to its simplicity of positioning and low rates of severe complications. In this paper a review is performed of the evidence about this subject.

Feeding Jejunostomy after esophagectomy cannot be routinely recommended. Analysis of nutritional benefits and catheter-related complications

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer usually deal with malnourishment which increases postoperative morbimortality. The objective of this paper is to analyze the nutritional benefits of feeding jejunostomy (FJ) for early postoperative enteral nutrition (EN) and directly-related complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 100 patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer between 2008 and 2016.

RESULTS

FJ was placed in 47 patients. 82.98% reached EN requirements in FJ group, with a median EN re-start of 1.9 days and median days to objective requirements of 5 days. 51.06% developed directly-related FJ complication, 91.66% of them mild ones (gastrointestinal or catheter-related). 2 patients (4.25%) required re-intervention. No significant differences were shown in total protein and albumin seric levels during first postoperative week and in anastomotic leak rate between both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding jejunostomies are associated with a great number of complications although most are not life-threatening. Since its nutritional benefit is not proven FJ cannot routinely recommended after esophagectomy. However, the optimal pathway for EN reintroduction, including direct oral intake, is still a matter of debate.

Nutrition therapy in esophageal cancer-Consensus statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan

A number of clinical guidelines on nutrition therapy in cancer patients have been published by national and international societies; however, most of the reviewed data focused on gastrointestinal cancer or non-cancerous abdominal surgery. To collate the corresponding data for esophageal cancer (EC), a consensus panel was convened to aid specialists from different disciplines, who are involved in the clinical nutrition care of EC patients. The literature was searched using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ISI Web of Knowledge. We searched for the best evidence pertaining to nutrition therapy in the case of EC. The panel summarized the findings in 3 sections of this consensus statement, based on which, after the diagnosis of EC, an initial distinction is made between the patients, as follows: (1) Assessment; (2) Therapy in patients with resectable disease; patients receiving chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy prior to resection, and patients with unresectable disease, requiring chemoradiotherapy or palliative therapy; and (3) Formula. The resulting consensus statement reflects the opinions of a multidisciplinary group of experts, and a review of the current literature, and outlines the essential aspects of nutrition therapy in the case of EC. The statements are: Patients with EC are among one of the highest risk to have malnutrition. Patient generated suggestive global assessment is correlated with performance status and prognosis. Nutrition assessment for patients with EC at the diagnosis, prior to definitive therapy and change of treatment strategy are suggested and the timing interval can be two weeks during the treatment period, and one month while the patient is stable. Patients identified as high risk of malnutrition should be considered for preoperative nutritional support (tube feeding) for at least 7-10 days. Various routes for tube feedings are available after esophagectomy with similar nutrition support benefits. Limited intrathoracic anastomotic leakage postesophagectomy can be managed with intravenous antibiotics and self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) or jejunal tube. Enteral nutrition in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation provides benefits of maintaining weight, decreasing toxicity, and preventing treatment interruption. Tube feeding or SEMS can offer nutrition support in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer, but SEMS is not recommended for those with neoadjuvant chemoradiation before surgery. Enteral immunonutrition may preserve lean body mass and attenuates stress response after esophagectomy. Administration of glutamine may decrease the severity of chemotherapy induced mucositis. Enteral immunonutrition achieves greater nutrition status or maintains immune functions during concurrent chemoradiation.

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.

An investigation into the nutritional status of patients receiving an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol versus standard care following Oesophagectomy

PURPOSE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been effectively expanded to various surgical specialities including oesophagectomy. Despite nutrition being a key component, actual nutrition outcomes and specific guidelines are lacking. This cohort comparison study aims to compare nutritional status and adherence during implementation of a standardised post-operative nutritional support protocol, as part of ERAS, compared to those who received usual care.

METHODS

Two groups of patients undergoing resection of oesophageal cancer were studied. Group 1 (n = 17) underwent oesophagectomy between Oct 2014 and Nov 2016 during implementation of an ERAS protocol. Patients in group 2 (n = 16) underwent oesophagectomy between Jan 2011 and Dec 2012 prior to the implementation of ERAS. Demographic, nutritional status, dietary intake and adherence data were collected. Ordinal data was analysed using independent t tests, and categorical data using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in nutrition status, dietary intake or length of stay following implementation of an ERAS protocol. Malnutrition remained prevalent in both groups at day 42 post surgery (n = 10, 83% usual care; and n = 9, 60% ERAS). A significant difference was demonstrated in adherence with earlier initiation of oral free fluids (p <0.008), transition to soft diet (p <0.004) and continuation of jejunostomy feeds on discharge (p <0.000) for the ERAS group.

CONCLUSION

A standardised post-operative nutrition protocol, within an ERAS framework, results in earlier transition to oral intake; however, malnutrition remains prevalent post surgery. Further large-scale studies are warranted to examine individualised decision-making regarding nutrition support within an ERAS protocol.

Routine jejunostomy tube feeding following esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is an important problem following esophagectomy. A surgically placed jejunostomy secures an enteral feeding route, facilitating discharge with home-tube feeding and long-term nutritional support. However, specific complications occur, and data are lacking that support its use over other enteral feeding routes. Therefore routine jejunostomy tube feeding and discharge with home-tube feeding was evaluated, with emphasis on weight loss, length of stay and re-admissions.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer, with gastric tube reconstruction and jejunostomy creation, were analyzed. Two different regimens were compared. Before January 07, 2011 patients were discharged when oral intake was sufficient, without tube feeding. After that discharge with home-tube feeding was routinely performed. Logistic regression analysis corrected for confounders.

RESULTS

Some 236 patients were included. The median duration of tube feeding was 35 days. Reoperation for a jejunostomy-related complication was needed in 2%. The median body mass index (BMI) remained stable during tube feeding. The BMI decreased significantly after stopping tube feeding: from 25.6 (1st-3rd quartile 23.0-28.6) kg/m2 to 24.4 (22.0-27.1) kg/m2 at 30 days later [median weight loss: 3.0 (1.0-5.3) kg; 3.9% (1.5-6.3%)]. Weight loss was not affected by the duration of tube feeding duration. Routine home-tube feeding did not affect weight loss, admission time or the readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Weight loss following esophagectomy occurs once that tube feeding is stopped, independently from the time interval after esophagectomy. Moreover routine discharge with home-tube feeding does not reduce length of stay or readmissions. These findings question the value of routine jejunostomy placement and emphasize the need for further research.

Feeding catheter gastrostomy with the round ligament of the liver prevents mechanical bowel obstruction after esophagectomy

Jejunostomy, which requires the fixation of the jejunum to the abdominal wall, is commonly used as an enteral feeding access after esophagectomy. However, this procedure sometimes causes severe complications, such as mechanical bowel obstruction. In 2009, we developed a modified approach to insert an enteral feeding tube through the reconstructed gastric tube using the round ligament of the liver. The aim of this study is to investigate the usefulness of this approach as compared to the approach through jejunostomy. Between January 2005 and March 2015, 420 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy via thoracotomy and laparotomy. Of these, 214 underwent feeding jejunostomy (FJ group) and 206 patients underwent feeding via gastric tube with round ligament of the liver (FG group). Catheter-related complications, other postoperative complications, and mortality were compared between the two groups. The incidence of catheter site infection during catheterization in the FG group was significantly lower (n = 1/206, 0.5%) compared to the FJ group (n = 11/214, 5.1%) (P < 0.01). The postoperative bowel obstruction did not occur in the FG group, while it occurred in eight patients (3.7%) in the FJ group (P < 0.01). The incidences of other catheter-related and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Feeding catheter gastrostomy with the round ligament of the liver can be a useful enteral feeding access after esophagectomy, because the incidence rate of severe catheter-related complications, such as surgical site infection and mechanical obstruction tend to be lower with this technique compare to jejunostomy.

Successful Conservative Management of Spontaneous Antegrade Migration of Feeding Jejunostomy

Successful conservative management of spontaneous antegrade migration of feeding jejunostomy of a patient with dysphagia due to carcinoma of nasopharynx is reported. How to cite this article: Krishnamurthy G, Pandit N, Singh H, Singh R. Successful Conservative Management of Spontaneous Antegrade Migration of Feeding Jejunostomy. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(1):84-86.

Critical analysis of feeding jejunostomy following resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancies

AIM

To assess nutritional recovery, particularly regarding feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) utilization, following upper gastrointestinal resection for malignancy.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a prospectively-maintained database of adult patients who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy (subtotal or total) for cancer with curative intent, from January 2001 to June 2014. Patient demographics, the approach to esophagectomy, the extent of gastrectomy, FJT placement and utilization at discharge, administration of parenteral nutrition (PN), and complications were evaluated. All patients were followed for at least ninety days or until death.

RESULTS

The 287 patients underwent upper GI resection, comprised of 182 esophagectomy (n = 107 transhiatal, 58.7%; n = 56 Ivor-Lewis, 30.7%) and 105 gastrectomy [n = 63 subtotal (SG), 60.0%; n = 42 total (TG), 40.0%]. 181 of 182 esophagectomy patients underwent FJT, compared with 47 of 105 gastrectomy patients (99.5% vs 44.8%, P < 0.0001), of whom most had undergone TG (n = 39, 92.9% vs n = 8 SG, 12.9%, P < 0.0001). Median length of stay was similar between esophagectomy and gastrectomy groups (14.7 d vs 17.1 d, P = 0.076). Upon discharge, 87 esophagectomy patients (48.1%) were taking enteral feeds, with 53 (29.3%) fully and 34 (18.8%) partially dependent. Meanwhile, 20 of 39 TG patients (51.3%) were either fully (n = 3, 7.7%) or partially (n = 17, 43.6%) dependent on tube feeds, compared with 5 of 8 SG patients (10.6%), all of whom were partially dependent. Gastrectomy patients were significantly less likely to be fully dependent on tube feeds at discharge compared to esophagectomy patients (6.4% vs 29.3%, P = 0.0006). PN was administered despite FJT placement more often following gastrectomy than esophagectomy (n = 11, 23.4% vs n = 7, 3.9%, P = 0.0001). FJT-specific complications requiring reoperation within 30 d of resection occurred more commonly in the gastrectomy group (n = 6), all after TG, compared to 1 esophagectomy patient (12.8% vs 0.6%, P = 0.0003). Six of 7 patients (85.7%) who experienced tube-related complications required PN.

CONCLUSION

Nutritional recovery following esophagectomy and gastrectomy is distinct. Operations are associated with unique complication profiles. Nutritional supplementation alternative to jejunostomy should be considered in particular scenarios.

Complications of Feeding Jejunostomy Tubes in Patients with Gastroesophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy tubes (FJT) in patients undergoing resection of gastroesophageal cancers facilitate perioperative nutrition. Data regarding FJT use and complications are limited.

STUDY DESIGN

A single institution review was performed for patients who underwent perioperative FJT placement for gastrectomy or esophagogastrectomy from 2007 to 2015. FJT-related and unrelated complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

FJTs were inserted for total/completion gastrectomy (n = 49/117, 41.9 %), proximal gastrectomy (n = 7/117, 6.0 %), or esophagogastrectomy (n = 61/117, 52.1 %). Ninety percent (n = 106/117) of patients used an FJT at some time point. Although the majority of patients (75.2 %) used FJTs after discharge, 8.5 % (n = 10/117) never used the FJT and 10.3 % (n = 12/117) used the FJT only during hospitalization. Overall, 44.4 % (n = 52/117) had FJT-related complications, including dislodgement (n = 22), clogging (n = 13), and leakage (n = 6). The majority of FJT complications were resolved by telephone triage (13.5 %) or bedside/clinic intervention (57.7 %), but 3.4 % required operative intervention for small bowel obstruction (n = 3) and hemorrhage (n = 1). FJT complications were more common with gastrectomy than esophagogastrectomy (53.6 vs. 36.0 %), perhaps related to longer FJT use in gastrectomy patients (71 vs. 38 days).

CONCLUSIONS

FJT-related complications are common, occurring more frequently after gastrectomy than esophagogastrectomy. In most patients, complications can be managed by simple measures, rarely requiring operative intervention. Nevertheless, the need for FJTs should be carefully considered to balance nutritional benefits with the risks of insertion and usage.

HBV Treatment in Turkey: The Value of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Quantification of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in the Long-term Follow-up-A Single-center Study

Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seems to have significant clinical implications to assess the prognosis of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We assessed HBsAg levels serially in patients with CHB in a single center in Turkey.

How to cite this article: Ozkan H. HBV Treatment in Turkey: The Value of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Quantification of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in the Long-term Follow-up—A Single-center Study. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(1):82-83.

ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

The ESPEN guideline presents a multidisciplinary focus on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODOLOGY

The guideline is based on extensive systematic review of the literature, but relies on expert opinion when objective data were lacking or inconclusive. The conclusions and 64 recommendations have been subject to full peer review and a Delphi process in which uniformly positive responses (agree or strongly agree) were required.

RESULTS

IBD is increasingly common and potential dietary factors in its aetiology are briefly reviewed. Malnutrition is highly prevalent in IBD - especially in Crohn's disease. Increased energy and protein requirements are observed in some patients. The management of malnutrition in IBD is considered within the general context of support for malnourished patients. Treatment of iron deficiency (parenterally if necessary) is strongly recommended. Routine provision of a special diet in IBD is not however supported. Parenteral nutrition is indicated only when enteral nutrition has failed or is impossible. The recommended perioperative management of patients with IBD undergoing surgery accords with general ESPEN guidance for patients having abdominal surgery. Probiotics may be helpful in UC but not Crohn's disease. Primary therapy using nutrition to treat IBD is not supported in ulcerative colitis, but is moderately well supported in Crohn's disease, especially in children where the adverse consequences of steroid therapy are proportionally greater. However, exclusion diets are generally not recommended and there is little evidence to support any particular formula feed when nutritional regimens are constructed.

CONCLUSIONS

Available objective data to guide nutritional support and primary nutritional therapy in IBD are presented as 64 recommendations, of which 9 are very strong recommendations (grade A), 22 are strong recommendations (grade B) and 12 are based only on sparse evidence (grade 0); 21 recommendations are good practice points (GPP).

[Impact of perioperative nutritional therapy on risk and complication management in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer]

Esophagectomy is considered to be a high risk procedure regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, in Germany, these operations are limited to hospitals fulfilling a minimum quantity. This systematic review focuses on risk and complication management regarding the impact of perioperative nutritional therapy, including the recent S3-guideline recommendations and comments of the German Working Group of Medical Societies (AWMF) which were established with contributions from the authors.

Routes of early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy

Introduction Oesophagectomy for cancer is a challenging procedure with a five-year overall survival rate of 15-20%. Early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy is a crucial component of the postoperative recovery and carries a significant impact on the outcome. Different methods of enteral feeding were conducted in our unit. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of nasojejunal tube (NJT), jejunostomy tube (JT) and pharyngostomy tube (PT) feeding after oesophagectomy. Methods A retrospective review was carried out of prospectively collected data on patients with oesophageal cancer who underwent an oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2014. The primary outcome was feeding tube related complications such as occlusion, dislocation and leak. The secondary outcomes were length of stay and 30-day morbidity. Results A total of 90 oesophagectomies were included in the study. A NJT was inserted in 41 patients (45.6%), a JT was used in 14 patients (15.5%) and a PT was the route for enteral nutrition in 35 patients (38.9%). In total, five patients (5.5%) developed tube related complications. There were no tube related complications in the NJT group but one JT patient (7.1%) developed tube related cellulitis (p=0.189) and four PT patients (11.4%) developed tube related haemorrhage (p=0.544), tube dislocation (p=0.544) or cellulitis (p=0.189). The median length of stay and 30-day postoperative morbidity were similar between the groups. Conclusions NJT feeding is a less invasive, feasible route for early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy. A randomised controlled trial is recommended to verify these findings.

Clinical Burden of Laparoscopic Feeding Jejunostomy Tubes

INTRODUCTION

Feeding jejunostomies (J tubes) provide enteral nutrition when oral and gastric routes are not options. Despite their prevalence, there is a paucity of literature regarding their efficacy and clinical burden.

METHODS

All laparoscopic J tubes placed over a 5-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical burden was measured by number of clinical contact events (tube-related clinic visits, phone calls, ED visits) and morbidity (dislodgement, clogging, tube fracture, infection, other). Tube replacements were also recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one patients were included. Fifty-nine percent had associated malignancy, and 35 % were placed for nutritional prophylaxis. Mean time to J tube removal was 146 days. J tubes were expected to be temporary in >90 % but only 50 % had sufficient oral intake for removal. Tubes were removed prematurely due to patient intolerance in 8 %. Mortality was 0 %. Morbidity was 51 % and included clogging (12 %), tube fracture (16 %), dislodgement (25 %), infection (18 %) and "other" (leaking, erosion, etc.) in 17 %. The median number of adverse events per J tube was 2(0-8). Mean number of clinic phone calls was 2.5(0-22), ED visits 0.5(0-7), and clinic visits 1.4(0-13), with 82 % requiring more than one J tube-related clinic visit. Unplanned replacements occurred in 40 %.

CONCLUSION

While necessary for some patients, J tubes are associated with high clinical burden.

Study of Feeding Jejunostomy as an Add on Procedure in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeries

Jejunostomy is usually indicated as an additional procedure during major surgery of upper digestive tract to administer enteral nutrition in post-operative period. Complications associated with it can be mechanical, infectious, gastrointestinal or metabolic. The aim of the study was to evaluate safety of post-operative feeding jejunostomy in different types of major upper gastrointestinal surgeries. It was a prospective study conducted during the period between August 2009 and September 2011. Post-operative cases of major upper gastrointestinal surgeries who receive jejunostomy feeds were included in the study. Sampling was done by convenient method with sample size of 50 cases. Post-operatively, patients were monitored according to standard orders of enteral nutrition. Total calorie and protein intake through feeding jejunostomy was calculated regularly, and complications were assessed in terms of frequency, type, duration, management, and final outcome in different types of upper gastro intestinal surgeries. Analysis was done using chi square test with the help of statistical package SPSS vers.13. P < 0.05 was considered as significant. Complications observed were gastrointestinal -8 (16 %), mechanical -6 (12 %), infectious -4 (8 %) and metabolic -4 (8 %). Duration of complications ranged from 1 to 7 days (mean, 4 days). All types of complications observed during study were less severe and could be managed by simple measurements. Haemoglobin, serum albumin and weight of the patient at the time of discharge were improved for all patients when compared to pre-operative values. All patients received target calories and proteins through feeding jejunostomy. Considering benefits of enteral feeding via jejunostomy tube with minor and acceptable complications, we conclude that feeding jejunostomy is a preferred route of nutritional administration in those who undergo major upper gastro intestinal surgeries.

Postoperative Morbidity in Curative Resection of Gastroesophageal Carcinoma Does Not Impact Long-term Survival

Significant morbidity and mortality have historically been reported for surgical resection of gastric and gastroesophageal junction tumors. We evaluated our experience to determine morbidity and mortality and evaluated demographic and pathologic risk factors associated with postoperative outcome and long-term survival. A retrospective, Institutional Review Board-approved, single-institution database identified 102 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for gastroesophageal junction or gastric carcinoma from 2004 to 2012. The method of Kaplan and Meier was used to describe overall survival and estimate median survival. Of 102 patients, 74 were male and 28 were female. Of these, 24 patients were > 70 years of age at surgery (median = 62.9). Forty esophagectomies, 25 total gastrectomies, and 37 subtotal gastrectomies were performed. Two patients died (one esophagectomy and one gastrectomy). Forty-one developed a complication: 17 minor and 35 major, including six anastomotic leaks. Patients with low preoperative albumin (P = 0.01) and increased age (P = 0.05) were associated with having a postoperative complication; extent of nodal dissection (P = 0.48), jejunostomy (0.24), performance status (P = 0.77), type of surgery (P = 0.74), and neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.24) were not associated. More extensive nodal dissection was associated with a decreased risk of death (P = 0.007). Having any complication (P = 0.20), an anastomotic leak (P = 0.17), worse grade of complication (P = 0.15), presence of feeding jejunostomy tube (P = 0.17), and neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.30) were not associated with changes in overall survival. Thorough lymph node dissection improves survival without increasing postoperative morbidity. The data advocate for increased lymph node yield and close attention to nutritional support in gastroesophageal carcinoma patients.

A randomised controlled trial of six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: report on a pilot and feasibility study

Background

Poor nutrition in the first months after oesophago-gastric resection is a contributing factor to the reduced quality of life seen in these patients. The aim of this pilot and feasibility study was to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate routine home enteral nutrition in these patients.

Methods

Patients undergoing oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy were randomised to either six weeks of home feeding through a jejunostomy (intervention), or treatment as usual (control). Intervention comprised overnight feeding, providing 50 % of energy and protein requirements, in addition to usual oral intake. Primary outcome measures were recruitment and retention rates at six weeks and six months. Nutritional intake, nutritional parameters, quality of life and healthcare costs were also collected. Interviews were conducted with a sample of participants, to ascertain patient and carer experiences.

Results

Fifty-four of 112 (48 %) eligible patients participated in the study over the 20 months. Study retention at six weeks was 41/54 patients (76 %) and at six months was 36/54 (67 %). At six weeks, participants in the control group had lost on average 3.9 kg more than participants in the intervention group (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.6 to 6.2). These differences remained evident at three months (mean difference 2.5 kg, 95 % CI −0.5 to 5.6) and at six months (mean difference 2.5 kg, 95 % CI −1.2 to 6.1). The mean values observed in the intervention group for mid arm circumference, mid arm muscle circumference, triceps skin fold thickness and right hand grip strength were greater than for the control group at all post hospital discharge time points. The economic evaluation suggested that it was feasible to collect resource use and EQ-5D data for a full cost-effectiveness analysis. Thematic analysis of 15 interviews identified three main themes related to the intervention and the trial: 1) a positive experience, 2) the reasons for taking part, and 3) uncertainty of the study process.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that home enteral feeding by jejunostomy was feasible, safe and acceptable to patients and their carers. Whether home enteral feeding as ’usual practice’ is a cost-effective therapy would require confirmation in an appropriately powered, multi-centre study.

Trial registration

UK Clinical Research Network ID 12447 (main trial, first registered 30 May 2012); UK Clinical Research Network ID 13361 (qualitative substudy, first registered 30 May 2012); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01870817 (first registered 28 May 2013)

Feeding duodenostomy decreases the incidence of mechanical obstruction after radical esophageal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Nutritional support influences the outcome of gastroenterological surgery, and enteral nutrition effectively mitigates postoperative complications in highly invasive surgery such as resection of esophageal cancer. However, feeding via jejunostomy can cause complications including mechanical obstruction, which could be life threatening. From 2009, we began enteral feeding via duodenostomy to reduce the likelihood of complications. In this study, we compared duodenostomy with the conventional jejunostomy feeding, mainly looking at the catheter-related complications.

METHODS

The database records of 378 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent radical esophagectomy with retrosternal or posterior mediastinal gastric tube reconstruction in our department from January 1998 to December 2012 were examined. Of the 378 patients, 111 underwent feeding via duodenostomy (FD) and 267 underwent feeding via jejunostomy (FJ), and their records were reviewed for the following catheter-related complications: site infection, dislodgement, peritonitis, and mechanical obstruction.

RESULTS

Mechanical obstruction occurred in 12 patients in the FJ group but none in the FD group (4.5 % vs. 0 %, P = 0.023). Of the 12 cases, 7 (58.3 %) required surgery of which 2 had bowel resection due to strangulated mechanical obstruction. Catheter site infection was seen in 14 cases in the FJ group, of which 2 (14.2 %) had peritonitis following catheter dislocation, while only one case of site infection was seen in the FD group (5.2 % vs. 0.9 %, P = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding via duodenectomy could be the procedure of choice since neither mechanical obstruction nor relaparotomy was seen during enteral feeding through this technique.

A systematic review of the nutritional consequences of esophagectomy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

As improved outcomes after esophagectomy have been observed over the last two decades, the focus on care has shifted to survivorship and quality of life. The aim of this review was to determine changes in nutrition after esophagectomy and to assess the evidence for extended nutrition support.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed to identify primary research reporting change in nutritional status a minimum of one month after esophagectomy.

RESULTS

Changes in nutritional parameters reported by 18 studies indicated a weight loss of 5-12% at six months postoperatively. More than half of patients lost >10% of body weight at 12 months. One study reported a persistent weight loss of 14% from baseline three years after surgery. Three studies reporting on longer term follow up noted that 27%-95% of patients failed to regain their baseline weight. Changes in dietary intake (three studies) indicated inadequate energy and protein intake up to three years after surgery. Global quality of life scores reported in one study correlated with better weight preservation. There were a high frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms reported in six studies, most notably in the first year after surgery, but persisting up to 19 years. Extended enteral nutrition on a selective basis has been reported in several studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional status is compromised in the months/years following oesophagectomy and may never return to baseline levels. The causes/consequences of weight loss/impaired nutritional intake require further investigation. The role of extended nutritional support in this population remains unclear.

Patient and Family Caregivers' Experiences of Living With a Jejunostomy Feeding Tube After Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Jejunostomy feeding tubes (JFTs) can be used to provide nutrition support to patients who have had surgery for esophagogastric cancer. Although previous research reports how patients cope with a gastrostomy tube, little is known about the impact of having a JFT. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how patients and their informal caregivers experience living with a JFT in the first months following surgery.

METHODS

Participants were purposively sampled from a cohort of patients recruited to a trial investigating home enteral nutrition vs standard care after esophagogastric surgery for cancer. The sampling framework considered age, sex, and marital status. Informal caregivers were also invited to participate. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes related to living with a JFT.

RESULTS

Fifteen patient interviews were conducted; 8 also included a family caregiver. Analysis of the data resulted in 2 main themes: "challenges" and "facilitators" when living with a JFT. While "physical effects," "worries" and "impact on routine" were the main challenges, "support," "adaptation" and "perceived benefit" were what motivated continuation of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that participants coped well with a JFT, describing high levels of compliance with stoma care and the feeding regimen. Nonetheless, disturbed sleep patterns and stoma-related problems proved troublesome. A better understanding of these practical challenges, from the patient and family caregiver perspective, should guide healthcare teams in providing proactive support to avoid preventable problems.

Impact of a Fast-track Esophagectomy Protocol on Esophageal Cancer Patient Outcomes and Hospital Charges

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol (FTEP) on esophageal cancer patients' safety, length of hospital stay (LOS), and hospital charges.

BACKGROUND

FTEP involved transferring patients to the telemetry unit instead of the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) after esophagectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 708 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer during the 4 years before (group A; 322 patients) or 4 years after (group B; 386 patients) the institution of an FTEP. Postoperative morbidity and mortality, LOS, and hospital charges were reviewed.

RESULTS

Compared with group A, group B had significantly shorter median LOS (12 days vs 8 days; P < 0.001); lower mean numbers of SICU days (4.5 days vs 1.2 days; P < 0.001) and telemetry days (12.7 days vs 9.7 days; P < 0.001); and lower rates of atrial arrhythmia (27% vs 19%; P = 0.013) and pulmonary complications (27% vs 20%; P = 0.016). Multivariable analysis revealed FTEP to be associated with shorter LOS (P < 0.001) even after adjustment for predictors like tumor histology and location. FTEP was also associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications (odds ratio = 0.655; 95% confidence interval = 0.456, 0.942; P = 0.022). In addition, the median hospital charges associated with primary admission and readmission within 90 days for group B ($65,649) were lower than that for group A ($79,117; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that an FTEP reduces patients' LOS, perioperative morbidity, and hospital charges.

Routes for early enteral nutrition after esophagectomy. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Early enteral feeding following surgery can be given orally, via a jejunostomy or via a nasojejunal tube. However, the best feeding route following esophagectomy is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the best route for enteral nutrition following esophagectomy regarding anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, percentage meeting the nutritional requirements, weight loss, complications of tube feeding, mortality, patient satisfaction and length of hospital stay.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines.

RESULTS

There were 17 eligible studies on early oral intake, jejunostomy or nasojejunal tube feeding. Only one nonrandomized study (N = 133) investigated early oral feeding specifically following esophagectomy. Early oral feeding was associated with a reduced length of stay with delayed oral feeding, without increased complication rates. Postoperative nasojejunal tube feeding was not significantly different from jejunostomy tube feeding regarding complications or catheter efficacy in the only randomised trial on this subject (N = 150). Jejunostomy tube feeding outcome was reported in 12 non-comparative studies (N = 3293). It was effective in meeting short-term nutritional requirements, but major tube-related complications necessitated relaparotomy in 0-2.9% of patients. In three non-comparative studies (N = 135) on nasojejunal tube feeding only minor complications were reported, data on nutritional outcome was lacking. Data on patient satisfaction and long-term nutritional outcome were not found for any of the feeding routes investigated.

CONCLUSION

It is unclear what the best route for early enteral nutrition is after esophagectomy. Especially data regarding early oral intake are scarce, and phase 2 trials are needed for further investigation.

REGISTRATION

International prospective register of systematic reviews, CRD42013004032.

Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach

Background

McKeown-type esophagectomy combined with retrosternal reconstruction is a common surgical treatment for esophageal cancer. Various enteral feeding options are available post-esophagectomy, but no definitive preference exists.

Method

“Retrosternal Route Gastrostomy Feeding (RGF)” was developed as an alternative enteral feeding approach that requires few additional surgical interventions. RGF is based on McKeown-type esophagectomy. We retrospectively compared RGF (n = 121) to jejunostomy feeding (JF) (n = 153) in 274 patients at the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery in Changzheng Hospital (Shanghai, China) between June 2008 and Sept. 2012. Data pertaining to efficacy and procedural complications were compared among patients.

Results

RGF had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 15 days, p<0.001) and time to removal of the feeding tube (9 vs. 14 days, p<0.001) compared to JF. Bowel obstruction (0.0% vs. 7.2% p = 0.003), abdominal distension (9.1% vs. 19% p = 0.022), and the occurrence of pneumonia (11.6% vs. 26.1% p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the RGF group. Feeding tube related complications and the associated morbidity rate were reduced in the RGF group. The two groups had similar tolerance to surgery.

Conclusion

Our data suggests that RGF is a safe post-esophagectomy enteral feeding alternative to JF.

Perioperative nutritional support of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery in the age of ERAS

OBJECTIVE

The results achieved through the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach in gastrointestinal surgery have led to its enthusiastic acceptance in pancreatic surgery. However, the ERAS program also involves an early oral feeding that is not always feasible after pancreatoduodenectomy. The aim of this review was to investigate in the literature whether the difficulty with early oral feeding in these patients was adequately balanced by perioperative enteral or parenteral nutritional support as recommended by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines or whether these recommendations have lost value in the "bundle" of the ERAS.

METHODS

We reanalyzed both ESPEN guidelines and literature regarding the ERAS program in surgical pancreatic patients.

RESULTS

There was a high prevalence of malnutrition (and consequently of postoperative complications) in patients with pancreatic cancer, and there is evidence that many of these patients should be candidates for perioperative nutritional support according to ESPEN guidelines. The start of oral fluid and solid feeding was quite variable in literature reporting the use of ERAS in pancreatic cancer surgery, with a consistent gap between the recommended and the effective start of both the feedings. The use of nasogastric/jejunal tube or of a needle-catheter jejunostomy was discouraged by the ERAS guidelines but their use could prove beneficial in patients who are recognized at high risk for postoperative complications according to the scores available in the literature.

CONCLUSION

The current practice of the ERAS program in these patients appears to neglect some ESPEN recommendations. On the other hand, both ESPEN and ERAS recommendations could be combined for a supplemental benefit for the patient.