Study protocol for feasibility and safety of adopting early oral feeding in post total laparoscopic total gastrectomy (overlap esophagojejunostomy): A multicentre randomized controlled trial

Early Oral Feeding is Safe and Comfortable in Patients with Gastric Cancer Undergoing Radical Total Gastrectomy

Data supporting the safety and clinical efficacy of early oral feeding (EOF) after total gastrectomy are limited. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to explore the safety and clinical efficacy of two early enteral nutrition approaches for gastric cancer patients after radical total gastrectomy. The EOF group had faster postoperative recovery of intestinal function than the enteral tube feeding (ETF) group. The times to first flatus and first defecation were shorter in the EOF group (p < 0.05). In addition, the EOF protocol effectively avoided abdominal distension (p < 0.05). The hospitalization cost of the EOF group was lower than that of the ETF group (p < 0.05). Moreover, oral nutrition satisfied the physiological need for oral intake. People were more satisfied with EOF (p < 0.01). Furthermore, it is worth noting that compared with ETF, EOF did not increase the risk of anastomotic complications such as leakage and bleeding. Most obviously, EOF not only avoided the risk of complications during tube insertion, but also avoided the discomfort experience of nasal feeding tube. In summary, compared with ETF, EOF promotes early bowel recovery effectively without increasing the risk of postoperative complications. It is safe and comfortable for gastric cancer patients undergoing radical total gastrectomy.

Safety and effectiveness of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy vs laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For gastric cancer with total gastrectomy, the usual laparoscopic surgical approaches are totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG). Due to its difficult anastomotic technique, the adoption of TLTG is limited. Therefore, surgeons prefer using LATG, which also led to TLTG being somewhat overlooked, so there is no clear conclusion today as to which surgical procedure is more favorable to the patient's recovery. This article aimed to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of the two surgical approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies comparing TLTG and LATG, published up to December 2022, were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. The study outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, anastomosis time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal and distal resection margins, time to first fluid and soft diet, hospitalization duration, time to first flatus, and postsurgical and anastomotic complications, were compared between these two different surgical procedures. Statistics were analyzed with RevMan 5.4 and Stata 13.1.

RESULTS

Fifteen publications were included in this study. The total sample included 3023 cases. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in overall postoperative complications between the two surgical approaches ( P >0.05). Compared with LATG, TLTG led to reduced intraoperative blood loss ( P <0.0001), an increased number of lymphatic node dissections ( P <0.0001), and decreased hospitalization duration ( P =0.002). However, operative time, anastomosis time, pulmonary infection, resection margins, time to first fluid and soft diet, time to first flatus and anastomosis-related complications were no significant difference between TLTG and LATG groups ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

TLTG did not lead to an increase in overall postoperative complications, which is a reliable surgical approach for treatment of gastric cancer. Moreover, it may reduce harm to patients and enable them to obtain better surgical outcomes.