Elimination of Routine Feeding Jejunostomy After Esophagectomy

Laparoscopic jejunostomy during McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Nutrition is a key factor limiting the rapid recovery of patients undergoing esophagectomy, but there is as yet no consensus on the optimal route of nutritional support. This study aimed to evaluate the potential benefits of laparoscopic jejunostomy (Lap-J) in comparison to conventional nasoenteral tube (NT) feeding in patients who underwent McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

A total of 577 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who underwent McKeown MIE were included in this single-center retrospective study. They were divided into two groups based on whether or not an intraoperative jejunostomy tube (JT) was placed, and baseline information was made consistent between the 2 groups using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After exclusion and matching, 149 patients were included in each of the 2 groups. Compared with NT, patients who received JT had a shorter postoperative length of stay (11d vs 9d, P = 0.002), lower perioperative albumin loss rate (0.17 vs 0.13, P = 0.023), and lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (23 vs 3, P < 0.001) and pleural effusion (16 vs 5, P = 0.027). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) between the 2 groups. But in the group of patients with AL, the jejunostomy group had a significantly lower rate of perioperative albumin loss (0.20 (0.14-0.26) vs 0.12 (0.08-0.16) P = 0.03) and readmission (8 (40.0) vs. 2 (7.4) P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Lap-J during the McKeown MIE has demonstrated good safety and feasibility, and it contributes to the recovery of AL, making its outcome safe and simple.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National clinical trials registry: NCT06192212, registered January 4th, 2024.

The impact of jejunostomy feeding on nutritional outcomes after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Nutritional status is compromised long-term following oesophagectomy. Controversy surrounds the optimal route for nutrition support postoperatively and there is wide variation in the use of feeding jejunostomy tubes.

METHODS

A retrospective service evaluation was conducted for all consecutive adults who underwent oesophagectomy for a cancer diagnosis within a specialist centre between April 2016 and July 2019 (n = 165). Nutritional and clinical outcomes were compared for patients who received jejunostomy feeding (n = 24), versus those who did not (n = 141).

RESULTS

Patients with feeding jejunostomy lost significantly less weight at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively compared to those without jejunostomy (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). This remained statistically significant in multiple regression, controlling for age, gender, preoperative tumour staging and adjuvant treatment (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). Median length of home enteral feeding was 10 weeks after discharge in the jejunostomy group. We observed minor jejunostomy tube-related complications in four patients (16.7%). Of those readmitted within 90 days of surgery in the non-jejunostomy group, nutritional failure was a factor in 43.2% of these readmissions. "Rescue tube feeding" was required by 8.5% of the non-jejunostomy group within the first postoperative year, including 6.4% within 90 days of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of short-term supplementary jejunal feeding in addition to oral intake after hospital discharge is beneficial for maintaining weight after oesophagectomy. We suggest a future randomised-controlled trial to confirm these findings.

Feeding Jejunostomy Tube in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy: Utilization and Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy (JT) tubes are often utilized as an adjunct to optimize nutrition for successful esophagectomy; however, their utility has come into question. The aim of this study was to evaluate utilization and outcomes associated with JTs in a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing esophagectomy.

METHODS

The NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent elective esophagectomy. JT utilization was assessed between 2010 and 2019. Post-operative outcomes were compared between those with and without a JT on patients with esophagectomy-specific outcomes (2016-2019), with results validated using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on key clinicopathologic factors, including tumor stage.

RESULTS

Of the 10,117 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy over the past decade, 53.0% had a JT placed concurrently and 47.0% did not. Utilization of JTs decreased over time, accounting for 60.0% of cases in 2010 compared to 41.7% in 2019 (m = - 2.14 95%CI: [- 1.49]-[- 2.80], p < 0.01). Patients who underwent JT had more composite wound complications (17.0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of all-cause morbidity (40.4% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.01). Following PSM, 1007 pairs were identified. Analysis of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a higher rate of superficial skin infections (6.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.01) in the JT group. However, length of stay, reoperation, readmission, anastomotic leak, composite wound complications, all-cause morbidity, and mortality rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, feeding jejunostomy tubes were utilized less frequently over the past decade. Similar perioperative outcomes among matched patients support the safety of esophagectomy without an adjunct feeding jejunostomy tube.

Cessation of Routine Jejunostomy Tube Placement at Time of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and Impact on Body Mass Index

Jejunostomy tubes are frequently placed at time of esophagectomy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate cessation of routine j-tube placement on postoperative body mass index (BMI), return to the emergency room, and time until adjuvant therapy. We performed a retrospective review of an institutional database for consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy from 2014-2021 (after January 2019, routine j-tube placement was abandoned). Data was analyzed using Pearson's Chi-squared tests and Student's t test with 2-sided significance level of P < 0.05. In total,179 patients were included, 95 underwent j-tube placement and 84 did not. Cohorts had comparable baseline BMI's (no j-tube: 30.48 vs j-tube: 28.64, P = 0.06) and anastomotic leak rates (2.4% vs 4.2%, P = 0.5). Patients with no jejunostomy tubes were more likely to receive total parenteral nutrition (14.3% vs 5.3%, P < 0.05), but were no more likely to require total parenteral nutrition at discharge and had comparable durations of TPN requirement (7 days vs 12 days, P = 0.53). There was no difference in mean BMI reduction at 2 weeks (2.54 vs 2.09, P = 0.49) and 3-6 months postoperatively (6.11 vs 4.45 P = 0.15). There was no difference in return to the emergency room (8.3% vs 8.4%, P = 0.98) or readmissions (13.1% vs 11.6%, P = 0.76). There was a no difference in mean time to adjuvant therapy (83.5 days vs 72.6 days, P = 0.67). At esophagectomy centers with low anastomotic leak rates, cessation of routine j-tube placement at time of minimally esophagectomy can be undertaken without increasing risk of readmission, time until initiation of adjuvant therapy, or significantly impacting postoperative BMI loss.

Role of intraoperative feeding jejunostomy in esophageal cancer surgery

Background

Feeding jejunostomy was routinely placed during esophagectomy to ensure postoperative enteral feeding. Improved anastomosis technique and early oral feeding strategy after esophagectomy has led to question the need for the routine placement of feeding jejunostomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate role of feeding jejunostomy during Ivor Lewis operation.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 414 patients who underwent the Ivor Lewis operations from January 2015 to December 2018.

Results

61 patients (14.7%) received jejunostomy insertion. The most common indication for jejunostomy was neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). 48 patients (79%) had jejunostomy removed within 60 days after the surgery and the longest duration of jejunostomy inserted state was 121 days. About two-third of the patients with jejunostomy had never prescribed with an enteral feeding product. Among 353 patients without intraoperative feeding jejunostomy, 11(3.1%) received delayed jejunostomy insertion. Graft-related problems (6 patients), cancer progression (3 patients), acute lung injury (1 patient), and swallowing difficulty (1 patient) were reasons for delayed feeding jejunostomy insertion. Complication rate was relatively high as 24 patients (33.3%) out of 72 patients with jejunostomy insertion had complications and 7 patients (9.7%) visited ER more than twice with jejunostomy-related complications.

Conclusion

Only 3.6% patients who underwent the Ivor Lewis operation during 4-year span had anastomosis leakage. Although one-third of the patients with jejunostomy were benefited with alternative method of feeding after discharge, high complication rate regarding jejunostomy should be also considered. We believe feeding jejunostomy should not be applied routinely with prophylactic measures and should be reserved to very carefully selected patients with multiple high-risk factors.

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.

Early versus the traditional start of oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nil by mouth is considered the standard of care during the first days following esophagectomy. However, with the routine implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery, early oral intake is more likely to be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of early oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated as the effect sizes for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 1947 patients were included. Length of hospital stay (WMD =  - 3.94, CI: - 4.98 to - 2.90; P < 0.001), the time to first flatus (WMD =  - 1.13, CI: - 1.25 to - 1.01; P < 0.001) and defecation (WMD =  - 1.26, CI: - 1.82 to - 0.71; P < 0.001) favored the early oral intake group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (OR = 1.23, CI: 0.45 to 3.36; P = 0.69). Early oral intake also did not increase the risk of pneumonia and overall postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates early oral intake following esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective. It may be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, more high-quality studies are still needed to further validate this conclusion.

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.

Risk Factors for Failure of Direct Oral Feeding Following a Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Recently, it has been shown that directly starting oral feeding (DOF) from postoperative day one (POD1) after a totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL) can further improve postoperative outcomes. However, in some patients, tube feeding by a preemptively placed jejunostomy is necessary. This single-center cohort study investigated risk factors associated with failure of DOF in patients that underwent a MIE-IL between October 2015 and April 2021. A total of 165 patients underwent a MIE-IL, in which DOF was implemented in the enhanced recovery after surgery program. Of these, 70.3% (n = 116) successfully followed the nutritional protocol. In patients in which tube feeding was needed (29.7%; n = 49), female sex (compared to male) (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.5–8.1)) and higher ASA scores (III + IV versus II) (OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.0–4.8)) were independently associated with failure of DOF for any cause. In case of failure, this was either due to a postoperative complication (n = 31, 18.8%) or insufficient caloric intake on POD5 (n = 18, 10.9%). In the subgroup of patients with complications, higher ASA scores (OR 2.8 (95% CI 1.2–6.8)) and histological subtypes (squamous-cell carcinoma versus adenocarcinoma and undifferentiated) (OR 5.2 (95% CI 1.8–15.1)) were identified as independent risk factors. In the subgroup of patients with insufficient caloric intake, female sex was identified as a risk factor (OR 5.8 (95% CI 2.0–16.8)). Jejunostomy-related complications occurred in 17 patients (10.3%). In patients with preoperative risk factors, preemptively placing a jejunostomy may be considered to ensure that nutritional goals are met.

Preoperative nutritional counselling in patients undergoing oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer are at high risk of malnutrition due to pathology and neoadjuvent therapy. This study sought to determine if oesophageal cancer patients undergoing oesophagectomy achieve superior clinical outcomes when preoperative nutritional counselling is performed.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer patients undergoing oesophagectomy were retrospectively divided into cohorts based on those who received (n = 48) and did not receive (n = 58) preoperative nutritional counselling. We compared weight loss, length of stay, 30-day readmission related to nutrition or feeding tube problems, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Per cent weight loss was less in patients who received preoperative nutritional counselling. There was a trend toward decreased mean length of stay and there were fewer readmissions for feeding tube-related complications in patients who received counselling.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional counselling before surgery may lead to decreased weight loss and reduced readmissions for feeding tube-related complications in patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing oesophagectomy.

Endoscopic pyloromyotomy in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a novel approach

BACKGROUND

Pyloric drainage procedures, namely pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty, have long been considered an integral aspect of esophagectomy. However, the requirement of pyloric drainage in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been brought into question. This is in part because of the technical challenges of performing the pyloric drainage laparoscopically, leading many surgical teams to explore other options or to abandon this procedure entirely. We have developed a novel, technically facile, endoscopic approach to pyloromyotomy, and sought to assess the efficacy of this new approach compared to the standard surgical pyloromyotomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MIE for cancer from 01/2010 to 12/2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database and were divided into two groups according to the pyloric drainage procedure: endoscopic or surgical pyloric drainage. 30-day outcomes (complications, length of stay, readmissions) and pyloric drainage-related outcomes [conduit distension/width, nasogastric tube (NGT) duration and re-insertion, gastric stasis] were compared between groups.

RESULTS

94 patients were identified of these 52 patients underwent endoscopic PM and 42 patients underwent surgical PM. The groups were similar with respect to age, gender and comorbidities. There were more Ivor-Lewis esophagectomies in the endoscopic PM group than the surgical PM group [45 (86%), 15 (36%) p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications and readmissions. Gastric stasis requiring NGT re-insertion was rare in the endoscopic PM group and did not differ significantly from the surgical PM group (1.9-4.7% p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic pyloromyotomy using a novel approach is a safe, quick and reproducible technique with comparable results to a surgical PM in the setting of MIE.

ERAS 2.0: Continued Refinement of an Established Enhanced Recovery Protocol for Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

We have previously demonstrated that implementing an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) improved outcomes after esophagectomy. We sought to examine if, after a decade of an established ERP, further improvements in postoperative outcomes could be made after continually optimizing and revising the pathway.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer from January 2019 to January 2020 were compared with our early-experience group within the initial ERP (June 2010-May 2011) and pre-ERP traditional care (June 2009-May 2010). The original ERP was initiated on June 2010 and underwent several revisions from 2014 to 2018, incorporating the following, amongst other elements: shorten the planned length of stay from 7 to 6 days, elimination of nasogastric tubes, use of soft closed-suction chest drains, and increased application of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Thirty-day outcomes (complications, length of stay, readmission) were compared for patients undergoing esophagectomy during the initial and most recent ERPs.

RESULTS

Overall, 175 patients were identified; 47 underwent esophagectomy before ERP implementation (traditional care), 59 patients underwent esophagectomy after implementation of the original ERP, and 69 patients underwent esophagectomy after the most recent ERP (ERP 2.0). The groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and diagnosis. There were three times more MIEs in the ERP 2.0 group with a shorter median length of stay (7 [6-9] vs. 8 [7-17] vs. 10 [9-17]; p < 0.001) without impacting postoperative morbidity or readmission rate.

CONCLUSION

Continued evaluation of institutional outcomes after esophagectomy should be performed to identify target areas for optimization and revision of established enhanced recovery protocols. ERPs are dynamic processes that can be further refined to yield greater improvements in outcomes.