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

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.

Intensified outpatient nutrition management improves body weight and skeletal muscle loss after esophageal cancer surgery: a single-center, retrospective, single-arm clinical study

BACKGROUND

The progression of malnutrition and sarcopenia after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer negatively influences long-term prognosis. To improve nutritional status after esophagectomy, we introduced an intensified nutrition management (iNM) protocol, in which nutritional counselling by dietitians was provided more frequently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of iNM compared with the conventional NM (cNM).

METHODS

We included 126 patients who underwent esophagectomy before and after NM revision, and compared nutritional status and changes in body composition after esophagectomy between the cNM and iNM groups. Nutritional parameters were assessed, and we also calculated skeletal muscle index (SMI), skeletal muscle density (SMD), and visceral fat area (VFA) using computed tomography volumetry.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or surgical outcomes between the groups. Compared with the cNM group, nutritional counselling was provided more frequently (P < 0.001) in the iNM group, and compliance rate increased from 56.3 to 91.9% (P < 0.001). Body weight loss at 4 and 6 months and SMI reduction at 6 months were significantly improved in the iNM group compared with the cNM group (P < 0.001, P = 0.032, and P = 0.023, respectively). There were no significant differences in the changes in SMD, VFA, serum albumin level, and prealbumin level between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient iNM significantly mitigated the reduction in body weight and SMI 3-6 months after esophagectomy.

Nutritional support via feeding jejunostomy in esophago-gastric cancers: proposal of a common working strategy based on the available evidence

Malnutrition is common in patients affected by esophago-gastric cancers and has a negative impact on both clinical and economic outcomes. Yet not all patients at risk of malnutrition are routinely assessed and receive appropriate support. Further, available research does not provide a mean for standardization of timing, route, and dosage for nutritional support, and this is particularly true for enteral nutrition via feeding jejunostomy. Herein, we provide an overview of the current evidence and use the gathered knowledge as a starting point for a consensus proposal. As a result, we aim to facilitate the development of appropriate and uniformed interventions, thus fulfilling the need for a multimodal therapeutic approach in these set of cancer patients.

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.

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.

Clinical Benefits of Routine Feeding Jejunostomy Tube Placement in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Routine placement of a feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) following esophagectomy remains controversial due to the risk of complications including small bowel obstruction (SBO). This study aimed to evaluate FJT placement following esophagectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive 229 patients undergoing thoracoscopic esophagectomy between January 2010 and June 2020. Short-term outcomes, postoperative nutritional status, incidence of SBO, and long-term outcomes were compared between patients according to FJT placement.

RESULTS

The total operative duration was significantly longer in the FJT group compared to the no FJT group (P < 0.0001); however, no differences in overall or severe postoperative morbidity were observed. Body weight loss at discharge was significantly attenuated in patients with FJT (5% vs 7%, P = 0.001). Serum cholinesterase levels were significantly higher in patients with FJT (P = 0.002), while no difference was observed in serum albumin levels. At 6-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed in serological markers or percentage body weight. The incidence of SBO was significantly higher in the FJT group (P = 0.006). The 5-year incidence of SBO was 12%. Patients in the FJT group had higher progression-free and overall survival compared to patients in the no FJT group (P = 0.041 and P = 0.033, respectively). A similar trend toward better survival in the FJT group was observed after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine placement of FJT significantly improves postoperative nutritional status and may contribute to improved long-term survival but is associated with increased long-term risk of SBO.

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.

Oligomeric Formulas in Surgery: A Delphi and Consensus Study

Nutritional management of patients with intestinal failure often includes the use of oligomeric formulas. Implementing the use of oligomeric formulas in surgical patients with maldigestion or malabsorption could be a nutritional strategy to be included in clinical protocols. We aim to generate knowledge from a survey focused on the effectiveness of nutritional therapy with oligomeric formulas with Delphi methodology. Each statement that reached an agreement consensus among participants was defined as a median consensus score ≥7 and as an interquartile range ≤3. The use of oligomeric formulas in surgical patients, starting enteral nutrition in the post-operative phase in short bowel syndrome and in nonspecific diarrhea after surgical procedures, could improve nutritional therapy implementation. Stakeholders agreed that early jejunal enteral nutrition with oligomeric formula is more effective compared to intravenous fluid therapy and it is useful in patients undergoing upper gastro-intestinal tract major surgery when malabsorption or maldigestion is suspected. Finally, oligomeric formulas may be useful when a feeding tube is placed distally to the duodenum. This study shows a practical approach to the use of oligomeric formulas in surgical patients with intestinal disorders and malabsorption, and it helps clinicians in the decision-making process.

Nutritional jejunostomy in esophagectomy for cancer, a national register-based cohort study of associations with postoperative outcomes and survival

Purpose

Insertion of a nutritional jejunostomy in conjunction with esophagectomy is performed with the intention to decrease the risk for postoperative malnutrition and improve recovery without adding significant catheter-related complications. However, previous research has shown no clear benefit and there is currently no consensus of practice.

Methods

All patients treated with esophagectomy due to cancer during the period 2006–2017 reported in the Swedish National Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer were included in this register-based cohort study from a national database. Patients were stratified into two groups: esophagectomy alone and esophagectomy with jejunostomy.

Results

A total of 847 patients (45.27%) had no jejunostomy inserted while 1024 patients (54.73%) were treated with jejunostomy. The groups were comparable, but some differences were seen in histological tumor type and tumor stage between the groups. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, postoperative surgical complications, Clavien-Dindo score, or 90-day mortality rate were seen. There was no evidence of increased risk for significant jejunostomy-related complications. Patients in the jejunostomy group with anastomotic leaks had a statistically significant lower risk for severe morbidity defined as Clavien-Dindo score ≥ IIIb (adjusted odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04–0.94, P = 0.041) compared to patients with anastomotic leaks and no jejunostomy.

Conclusion

A nutritional jejunostomy is a safe method for early postoperative enteral nutrition which might decrease the risk for severe outcomes in patients with anastomotic leaks. Nutritional jejunostomy should be considered for patients undergoing curative intended surgery for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer.

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.

Jejunostomy at the time of esophagectomy is associated with improved short-term perioperative outcomes: analysis of the NSQIP database

Adequate preoperative and perioperative nutrition has been shown to improve outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy. The most effective way to provide enteral nutrition for patients after esophagectomy is via jejunostomy tube. There is an open debate whether a feeding jejunostomy tube is necessary at the time of esophagectomy. This study evaluated short term surgical outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy with and without concurrent jejunostomy tube placement. Esophageal cancer patients were identified from the NSQIP database who underwent esophagectomy between 2005 through 2016. Patients were classified into 2 cohorts: patients with concurrent jejunostomy tube placement and those without jejunostomy placement at the time of esophagectomy. Clinical and demographic data was collected. Differences in short term outcomes were assessed by univariate and multivariable analysis, including prolonged hospital stay (>30 days), in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality for both cohorts. We identified 8,632 patients that underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with 80% males and mean age of 63.2±10.6 years. Twenty percent (n=1,723) had preoperative weight loss in the 6-month period preceding surgery. Forty-five percent (n=3,900) patients had jejunostomy placement at the time of esophagectomy. Overall, the rate of prolonged hospital stay (P=0.006), in-hospital mortality (P<0.001) and 30-day mortality (P<0.001) were significantly higher in patients without concurrent jejunostomy in both univariable and multivariable models. This study demonstrates that patients with jejunostomy placement at the time of esophagectomy have improved short term perioperative outcomes.

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.

Bowel obstruction associated with a feeding jejunostomy and its association to weight loss after thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Background

Our aim was to clarify the incidence of bowel obstruction associated with a feeding jejunostomy (BOFJ) after thoracoscopic esophagectomy and its association to characteristics and postoperative change in body weight.

Methods

We reviewed 100 consecutive patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and placement of a jejunostomy feeding catheter for esophageal cancer. The incidence of BOFJ was evaluated and the change in body weight after surgery was compared between patients with and without BOFJ.

Results

BOFJ developed in 17 patients. Compared to patients without BOFJ, those with BOFJ had a higher preoperative body mass index (23.3 kg/m² versus 20.9 kg/m², P = 0.022), and greater postoperative body weight loss rate: 3 month, decrease to 84.2% of initial body weight versus 89.3% (P = 0.002). Patients with BOFJ had shorter distance between the jejunostomy and midline (40 mm versus 48 mm, P = 0.011) compared to patients without BOFJ. On multivariate analysis, higher preoperative body mass index (odds ratio (OR) = 9.248; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.344–63.609; p = 0.024), higher postoperative weight loss at 3 months (OR = 8.490; 95% CI = 1.765–40.837, p = 0.008), and shorter distance between the jejunostomy and midline (OR = 8.160; 95% CI = 1.675–39.747, p = 0.009) were independently associated with BOFJ.

Conclusion

Patients of BOFJ had greater preoperative body mass, shorter distance between jejunostomy and midline, and greater postoperative weight loss.