Impact on Short-Term Complications of Early Oral Feeding in Patients with Esophageal Cancer After Esophagectomy

Effect of Early Versus Late Oral Feeding on Postoperative Complications and Recovery Outcomes for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effect of early oral feeding (EOF) versus late oral feeding (LOF) on postoperative complications and rehabilitation outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

This study searched relevant literature published up to March 2023 by computer retrieval of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software to compare the effects of EOF and LOF on postoperative complications and recovery outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer.

RESULTS

The study included 14 articles, including 9 retrospective studies, 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 1 prospective study. The 2555 patients included in the study comprised 1321 patients who received EOF and 1234 patients who received LOF. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with the LOF group, the EOF group has a shorter time to the first flatus postoperatively (mean difference [MD],  -  1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], (-  1.25 to -  1.00; P < 0.00001), a shorter time to the first defecation postoperatively (MD, -  1.31; 95% CI, -  1.67 to -   0.95;, P < 0.00001], and a shorter hospital stay postoperatively (MD, -  2.87; 95% CI, -  3.84 to -  1.90; P < 0.00001). The two groups did not differ significantly statistically in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.10), postoperative chyle leakage rate (P = 0.10), or postoperative pneumonia rate (P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Early oral feeding after esophageal cancer surgery can shorten the time to the first flatus and the first defecation postoperatively, shorten the hospital stay, and promote the recovery of patients. Moreover, it has no significant effect on the incidence of postoperative complications.

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.

Enhanced recovery after surgery improves short-term outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a perioperative management protocol that aims to accelerate patient recovery. This study aimed to evaluate its benefits in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared patients before (January 2013 to December 2016) and after (June 2018 to December 2020) ERAS protocol implementation in our hospital. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to compare short-term surgical outcomes between ERAS and non-ERAS groups. After PSM, each group included 243 patients.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in hospital length of stay after surgery (7.40 vs. 11.17 days, P<.001) and hospitalization cost (¥69380 vs. ¥78075, P<.001) between the ERAS and non-ERAS groups. The time to chest tube removal (4.91 vs. 7.16 days, P<.001) and first bowel movement (2.87 vs. 3.97 days, P<.001) was significantly shorter in the ERAS group. However, there was no significant difference in total postoperative complication morbidity (20.2% vs. 25.1%, P=0.193). The complication of postoperative atelectasis or pneumonia was significantly lower in the ERAS group (P=0.003), but there was no significant difference in occurrence of ≥Grade III complications between the two groups (12.3% vs. 11.5%, P=0.889).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that ERAS could reduce the hospital stay, numerical pain scores, and hospitalization costs without increasing postoperative complication and readmission. Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed that ERAS was safe for older people (>70 years old).

Timing of oral intake after esophagectomy: A narrative review of the literature and case report

Esophagectomy, a treatment modality for esophageal cancer, is associated with high rates of morbidity, the most common being anastomotic leaks and pulmonary complications. The current standard of care for nutrition support after esophagectomy includes a period of nothing by mouth with enteral nutrition support via jejunostomy tube owing to the concern of increasing the risk of anastomotic leak as a result of early postoperative oral intake. However, the optimal timing of oral diet initiation remains controversial. This narrative review presents a patient who incurred an anastomotic leak following esophagectomy after initiation of oral intake on postoperative day 5 and evaluates the current literature on the timing of oral diet initiation after esophagectomy. A systematic literature search was performed to assess current evidence evaluating early oral diet (EOD) initiation after esophagectomy. Over the past 5 years, 11 studies have evaluated the impact of EOD initiation after esophagectomy in comparison with a conventional feeding regimen, including a period of nothing by mouth with enteral or parenteral nutrition support. The available evidence suggests that EOD initiation does not increase rates of complications after esophagectomy. However, the evidence is limited by the lack of a standardized definition of what constitutes EOD initiation, patient selection bias, variations in nutrition support provided in the studies, and lack of statistical analyses evaluating the impact of potential confounding variables. Additional research with larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed to determine the optimal timing of diet initiation after esophagectomy.

Feasibility of enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery has generally been applied to gastrointestinal surgeries; however, few studies have investigated minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected between January 2015 and April 2020 for patients who underwent esophagectomy. Of these patients, those who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was selected for the investigation. Perioperative outcomes and nutritional index were compared using propensity score matching between the conventional group and the enhanced recovery group.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 73 and 46 were treated with conventional and enhanced recovery protocol, respectively. Forty-two pairs were matched in two groups. The enhanced recovery group showed a lower rate of pulmonary complications (9.5% vs. 28.5%, p = 0.0235), abdominal dysfunctions (16.7% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.0078), and shorter hospital stay as compared with the conventional group (17.5 days vs. 23 days, p = 0.0034). The loss of body weight (6.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.0065) and body mass index (5.6% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.0017) were significantly lower in the enhanced recovery group than in the conventional group. In contrast, nutritional biochemistry data did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the promotion of an enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy maintains nutritional status without increasing postoperative complications.