Routes of early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy

Feeding jejunostomy following esophagectomy may increase the occurrence of postoperative small bowel obstruction

This study aimed to clarify the characteristics and treatment of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy in patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. In this single-center retrospective study, 363 patients underwent esophagectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer at the Wakayama Medical University Hospital between January 2014 and June 2021. All patients who underwent esophagectomy routinely underwent feeding jejunostomy or gastrostomy. Feeding jejunostomy was used in the cases of gastric tube reconstruction through the posterior mediastinal route or colon reconstruction, while feeding gastrostomy was used in cases of retrosternal route gastric tube reconstruction. Nasogastric feeding tubes and round ligament technique were not used. Postoperative small bowel obstruction occurred in 19 of 197 cases of posterior mediastinal route reconstruction (9.6%), but in no cases of retrosternal route reconstruction because of the feeding gastrostomy (P < .0001). Of the 19 patients who had bowel obstruction after feeding jejunostomy, 10 patients underwent reoperation (53%) and the remaining 9 patients had conservative treatment (47%). The cumulative incidence of bowel obstruction after feeding jejunostomy was 6.7% at 1 year and 8.7% at 2 years. Feeding jejunostomy following esophagectomy is a risk factor for small bowel obstruction. We recommend feeding gastrostomy inserted from the antrum to the jejunum in the cases of gastric tube reconstruction through the retrosternal route or nasogastric feeding tube in the cases of reconstruction through the posterior mediastinal route.

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.

Is it necessary to routinely perform feeding jejunostomy at the time of esophagectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a routine procedure at the time of esophagectomy in some centers. With the widespread popularization of enhanced recovery after surgery, the necessity of FJ has been increasingly questioned. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and effectiveness between with (FJ group) or without (no-FJ group) performing FJ at the time of esophagectomy. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were overall postoperative complications, postoperative pneumonia, intestinal obstruction, and weight loss at 3 and 6 months after esophagectomy. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis. About 12 studies comprising 2,173 patients were included. The FJ group had a longer LOS (WMD = 2.05, P = 0.01) and a higher incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR = 11.67, P < 0.001) than the no-FJ group. The incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR = 1.24, P = 0.31) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.43, P = 0.13) were not significantly different, nor the weight loss at 3 months (WMD = 0.58, P = 0.24) and 6 months (P > 0.05) after esophagectomy. Current evidence suggests that routinely performing FJ at the time of esophagectomy appears not to generate better postoperative outcomes. FJ may need to be performed selectively rather than routinely. More studies are required to further verify.

Evaluation of oesophageal and gastric resection outcomes in a small-volume unit

Introduction

Oesophagogastric resections continue to be a major surgical challenge with high morbidity, this has led to a worldwide trend for centralisation of these complex surgeries. However, there is no clear agreement on what constitutes a high-volume centre, leading to worldwide disparity. We evaluate our experience of oesophagogastric resection in a small volume unit to seek other factors that influence patient outcome.

Methods

We analysed 173 consecutive oesophagogastric resection from 2010 to 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcome included peri-operative morbidity, length of stay, lymph node harvest, R0 resection. Collected continuous data were compared using the Mann-Whitney test and categorical data using the chi-squared test and expressed as p value.

Results

Of the 173 patients, 94 (54%) underwent hybrid minimal invasive esophagectomy (HIMO) and 79 (46%) underwent gastrectomy. 135 (78%) patients received Neoadjuvant therapy. The site of tumour was GOJ in 29%, distal stomach in 26% and distal oesophagus in 20%. Perioperative morbidity was observed in 18 (19%) after esophagectomy and 9 (11.4%) after gastrectomy. The median lymph node harvest was 18 (range 5–42) and 168 patients (97%) had longitudinal R0 resection. The most common complication was neurological seen in 3.6% followed by pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak seen in 5 patients (3%) each. The median in hospital stay was 6 days and the 30 day mortality was 2.9% with one year survival of 87%.

Conclusion

Small volume centres can produce comparable results. The outcomes depend on multifold parameters which include surgeon's experience in the field, ability to adhere to protocols and procedures and strong interpersonal relationship with individual patients.

•

Centralisation of Oesophagogastric resection due to high risks of morbidity.

•

Comparable outcome at small volume center.

•

Benefits of continuity of care and building strong relationship with patients.

A Meta-analysis of Jejunostomy Versus Nasoenteral Tube for Enteral Nutrition Following Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nutritional therapy is of paramount importance for patients undergoing esophagectomy. The jejunostomy and nasoenteral tube are the popular routes for nutritional therapy. However, which one is the preferred route is unclear. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and efficacy of the two routes for nutritional therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE (till September 17, 2020) were searched. The primary outcome was postoperative pneumonia. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stays (LOS), bowel obstruction, catheter dislocation, anastomotic leakage, overall postoperative complications, and postoperative albumin. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving a total of 1,531 patients in the jejunostomy group and 1,375 patients in the nasoenteral tube group were included. Compared with patients in the nasoenteral tube group, those in the jejunostomy group had a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.68, P < 0.001), shorter LOS (WMD = -0.85, P < 0.001), and lower risk of catheter dislocation (OR = 0.15, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.84, P = 0.43), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.87, P = 0.59), and postoperative albumin (WMD = -0.40, P = 0.24). However, patients in the jejunostomy group had a higher risk of bowel obstruction (OR = 8.42, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Jejunostomy for enteral nutrition showed superior outcomes in terms of postoperative pneumonia, LOS, and catheter dislocation. Jejunostomy may be the preferred enteral nutritional route following esophagectomy.

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.

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.

Feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections: a UK-wide survey

INTRODUCTION

The usage of a feeding jejunostomy has been a well-established practice in maintaining nutrition in patients undergoing resections for upper gastrointestinal cancer. As surgical technique has evolved, together with the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the routine insertion of feeding jejunostomy tubes appears to be changing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was constructed using Google Forms. The link was distributed to consultant upper gastrointestinal surgeons via the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons' membership database. Results were collated and analysed using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

A total of 55 responses were received from 28 units across the UK; 27 respondents (49.1%) no longer routinely use feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections, oesophagectomy or gastrectomy. The most common primary feeding modality used by these respondents was oral diet 17 (65.4%), with total parenteral nutrition (19.2%) and nasojejunal (11.5%) routes also being used. Respondents who used feeding jejunostomies inserted them primarily for oesophagectomy (n = 27; 96.4%), with fewer surgeons using them in extended total gastrectomy (n = 12; 42.9%) and total gastrectomy (n = 11; 39.3%). Of the total, 20 surgeons (71.4%) would insert the jejunostomy using an open approach, with 19 (67.9%) employing a Witzel tunnel. Eleven respondents (39.3%) would continue feeding via the jejunostomy after discharge. Some 24 responders thought that feeding jejunostomies did not facilitate the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway (strongly and slightly disagree), whereas 17 considered that they did (strongly and slightly agree); 13 responders did not have strong views either way.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a split in current practice regarding the usage of feeding jejunostomies. There is also a division of opinion on the role of feeding jejunostomy in enhanced recovery after surgery.

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.

Routine placement of feeding jejunostomy tube during esophagectomy increases postoperative complications and does not improve postoperative malnutrition

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a highly invasive procedure, and a feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) is routinely placed to ensure adequate enteral nutrition. However, the effect of perioperative short-term FJT placement remains controversial, and the aim of this study was to assess risks and benefits of routine FJT placement during esophagectomy and to determine parameters that can identify patients needing long-term FJT. This retrospective study included 393 patients who had undergone esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction via the posterior mediastinal route at the Kobe University Hospital and the Hyogo Cancer Center between April 2010 and December 2017. Propensity score matching was used to identify matched patients (139 per group) in the FJT and no-FJT groups. The incidence of postoperative complications and weight loss (3 months post-procedure) was compared in the matched cohort and significant risk factors predicting the need for long-term FJT placement in the whole cohort were identified. In the matched cohort, while weight loss was not different between the FJT and no-FJT groups (11% vs. 10%), the incidence of small bowel obstruction in the FJT group (11.5%) was significantly higher than that in the no-FJT group (0%). Multivariate analysis revealed that age (≥75 years), preoperative therapy, anastomosis leakage, and pulmonary complications were independent risk factors for long-term FJT placement. Routine placement of an FJT during esophagectomy increases small bowel obstruction and does not result in better nutritional status, suggesting that selective long-term FJT placement in high-risk patients should be considered.

Evaluation of the need for routine feeding jejunostomy for enteral nutrition after esophagectomy

Background

Previous studies have shown that enteral nutrition (EN) helps reduce severe postoperative complications after esophagectomy. However, the incidence of jejunostomy-related complications is approximately 30%. We evaluated the operative outcomes in patients who did not receive EN via feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 76 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who received radical esophagectomy. Operative outcomes were compared between 33 patients who received postoperative EN via feeding jejunostomy (group A; from May 2014 to September 2015) and 43 patients who did not receive EN via feeding jejunostomy (group B; from September 2015 to December 2017).

Results

The American Society of Anesthesiologists performance status score of the patients in group B was significantly higher than that of patients in group A (P=0.002). The postoperative morbidity rate was comparable between the two groups (group A, 30.3% vs. group B, 44.2%, P=0.217). No significant between-group differences were observed in the incidence of infectious complications, postoperative hospital stay, readmission within 30 days after discharge, or pneumonia after discharge within 6 months. The incidence of bowel obstruction was significantly higher in group A than in group B (group A, 9.1% vs. group B, 0%, P=0.044). Two patients in group B required nutritional support via total parenteral nutrition due to bilateral vocal cord palsy or pneumonia.

Conclusions

Jejunostomy-related bowel obstruction in the patients with feeding jejunostomy was significantly higher than that in the patients without jejunostomy. There was no increase in postoperative complications (including pneumonia) in the patients who did not receive EN via feeding jejunostomy. Our results suggest that routine feeding jejunostomy may not be necessary for all patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Nutritional aspects of enhanced recovery after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) aims to accelerate recovery by a set of multimodality management strategies. For esophagectomy, several nutritional elements of ERAS can be safely introduced and are advised in routine practice, including preadmission counseling to screen and treat for potential malnutrition, shortened preoperative fasting, and carbohydrate loading. However, the timing of oral intake and the use of routine nasogastric decompression remain matter of debate after esophagectomy. Furthermore, more research is needed on future developments such as perioperative immunonutrition.

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.