Critical analysis of feeding jejunostomy following resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancies

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.

Single-Center Randomized Trial Comparing Feeding Jejunostomy with Nasojejunal Tube Placement in Patients Undergoing Transhiatal Esophagectomy Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition is the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, the preferred mode of enteral nutrition (feeding jejunostomy (FJ) vs. nasojejunal (NJ) tube) remains contentious. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we compared FJ with NJ tube feeding in terms of safety, feasibility, efficacy, and quality-of-life (QOL) parameters in Indian patients undergoing trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE) for carcinoma esophagus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center, two-armed (FJ and NJ tube), non-inferiority RCT was conducted from March 2020 to January 2024. Forty-eight patients underwent THE with posterior-mediastinal-gastric pull-up and were randomized to NJ and FJ arms (24 in each group). The postoperative complications, catheter efficacy, and QOL parameters were compared between the two groups till the 6-week follow-up.

RESULTS

In this RCT, we found no significant difference in the occurrence of catheter-related complications, postoperative complication rate, catheter efficacy, and visual analog pain scores between patients with NJ tube and FJ, following THE for esophageal cancer. There was a significantly better self-reported physical domain QOL score noted in the NJ group, both at the time of discharge (44.7 ± 6.2 vs 39.8 + 5.6; p value, 0.005) and at the 6-week follow-up (55.4 ± 5.2 vs 48.6 ± 4.5; p value, < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of our RCT, we conclude that both enteral access methods (NJ vs. FJ) exhibit comparable incidences of catheter-related complications. The use of NJ tube is a viable alternative to a surgical FJ, has the benefit of early removal, and saves the distress associated with a tube per abdomen.

Postoperative nutrition in the setting of enhanced recovery programmes

Patients undergoing major surgery for gastrointestinal cancer are at high risk of developing or worsening malnutrition and sarcopenia. In malnourished patients, preoperative nutritional support may not be sufficient and so postoperative support is advised. This narrative review addresses several aspects of postoperative nutritional care in the setting of enhanced recovery programmes. Early oral feeding, therapeutic diet, oral nutritional supplements, immunonutrition, and probiotics are discussed. When postoperative intake is insufficient, nutritional support favouring the enteral route is recommended. Whether this approach should use a nasojejunal tube or jejunostomy is still a matter of debate. In the setting of enhanced recovery programmes with early discharge, nutritional follow-up and care should be continued beyond the short time in hospital. In enhanced recovery programmes, the main specific aspects of nutrition are patient education, early oral intake, and post-discharge care. The other aspects do not differ from conventional care.

Developing sarcopenia during neoadjuvant therapy is associated with worse survival in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia in cancer patients has been associated with mixed postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the development of sarcopenia during the neoadjuvant period is predictive of postoperative mortality in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients.

METHODS

We queried a prospective database to retrieve the sarcopenic status of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent cross-sectional imaging of the third lumbar vertebra at diagnosis and within 2 months of undergoing an esophagogastrectomy between 2014 and 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 71 patients included in the study, 36 (50.7%) presented with sarcopenia at diagnosis. Of the 35 non-sarcopenic patients, 14 (40%) developed sarcopenia during the neo-adjuvant period. Patients who were not sarcopenic at diagnosis but developed sarcopenia preoperatively had significantly worse overall survival than patients sarcopenic at diagnosis and not sarcopenic preoperatively and patients experiencing no change in sarcopenic status (median 18 vs 47 vs 31 months; P = .02). Diagnostic and preoperative sarcopenic status alone were not significantly associated with overall survival (P = .48 and P = .56, respectively). Although 37 (52.1%) patients died, the cause of death was often not cancer-related (54.1%) and included acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest. No significant survival difference was observed when stratified by >10% weight loss (P = .9) or large loss in body mass index (P = .8).

CONCLUSION

Developing sarcopenia during the neo-adjuvant period may be associated with worse overall survival in patients requiring esophagogastrectomy.

Ultra-Proximal Jejunostomy Application after McKeown-Type Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Case-Series Study

Background

Jejunostomy is the main form of enteral nutritional support after McKeown-type esophagectomy. However, this requires the jejunum to be secured to the abdominal wall, which can lead to catheter-related complications. Here, we present a new type of jejunostomy, ultra-proximal jejunostomy, which does not require fixation of the jejunum to the abdominal wall.

Methods

Patients who underwent McKeown-type esophagectomy between January 2021 and March 2022 were included in this study. Postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent ultra-proximal jejunostomy are also presented.

Results

Forty-three patients were able to receive enteral nutritional support via an ultra-proximal jejunostomy after McKeown-type esophagectomy, and no cases of enteral fistulas were observed. The pain in the left lower abdomen largely disappeared after the removal of the jejunostomy tube in all patients, and there was no difficulty in removing the tube. To date, none of these patients have experienced bowel obstruction or jejunal torsion.

Conclusion

An ultra-proximal jejunostomy is a safe and feasible method and a better option for enteral nutrition support after McKeown-type esophagectomy.

Gastro-Intestinal Disorders and Micronutrient Deficiencies following Oncologic Esophagectomy and Gastrectomy

Primary surgical indications for the esophagus and stomach mainly involve cancer surgeries. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the field of esogastric surgery, driven by advancements in surgical techniques and improvements in perioperative care. The rate of resectability has increased, and surgical strategies have evolved to encompass a broader patient population. However, despite a reduction in postoperative mortality and morbidity, malnutrition remains a significant challenge after surgery, leading to weight loss, muscle mass reduction, and deficiencies in essential nutrients due to digestive complications. Malnutrition worsens quality of life and increases the risk of tumor recurrence, significantly affecting prognosis. Nevertheless, the nutritional consequences following surgery are frequently overlooked, mainly due to a lack of awareness regarding their long-term effects on patients who have undergone digestive surgery, extending beyond six months. Micronutrient deficiencies are frequently observed following both partial and total gastrectomy, as anticipated. Surprisingly, these deficiencies appear to be similarly prevalent in patients who have undergone esophagectomy with iron, vitamins A, B1, B12, D, and E deficiencies commonly observed in up to 78.3% of the patients. Recognizing the distinct consequences associated with each type of intervention underscores the importance of implementing preventive measures, early detection, and prompt management.

Treatment and Prevention of Postoperative Leakage after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Anastomotic leakage is one of the common causes of serious morbidity and death after gastrectomy. The use of surgical treatment for leakage decreased due to the development of nonsurgical management. However, if nonsurgical management fails to control the spread of intra-abdominal infection, emergency surgical treatment is required. The authors wished to determine in which cases surgical treatment is needed for postoperative leakage and to identify treatment and prevention strategies. If a patient's vital signs are stable, local abscesses can be cured by conservative treatment after percutaneous drain insertion; if there is no improvement in anastomotic leakage, endoscopic treatment such as clipping, vacuum, and stent placement can be performed. If a patient's vital signs are unstable or patient shows diffuse peritonitis, surgical treatment should be performed. A surgical plan can be established according to leakage location. The duodenal stump may first require conservative treatment. It is recommended that surgical treatment be attempted first for anastomotic leakage of gastrojejunostomy site and gastric stump in remnant stomach. In conclusion, the need for surgical treatment is determined depending on vital signs and presence of diffuse peritonitis. During surgical treatment, a strategic approach is required according to the patient's condition and the anatomical location of leakage.

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.

Jejunostomy in the palliative treatment of gastric cancer: A clinical prognostic score

BACKGROUND

Clinical stage IV gastric cancer (GC) may need palliative procedures in the presence of symptoms such as obstruction. When palliative resection is not possible, jejunostomy is one of the options. However, the limited survival of these patients raises doubts about who benefits from this procedure.

AIM

To create a prognostic score based on clinical variables for 90-d mortality for GC patients after palliative jejunostomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of Stage IV GC who underwent jejunostomy. Eleven preoperative clinical variables were selected to define the score categories, with 90-d mortality as the main outcome. After randomization, patients were divided equally into two groups: Development (J1) and validation (J2). The following variables were used: Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA), Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI), hemoglobin levels, albumin levels, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), tumor size, presence of ascites by computed tomography (CT), and the number of disease sites. The score performance metric was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) to define low and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Of the 363 patients with clinical stage IVCG, 80 (22%) patients underwent jejunostomy. Patients were predominantly male (62.5%) with a mean age of 62.4 years old. After randomization, the binary logistic regression analysis was performed and points were assigned to the clinical variables to build the score. The high NLR had the highest value. The ROC curve derived from these pooled parameters had an AUC of 0.712 (95%CI: 0.537-0.887, P = 0.022) to define risk groups. In the validation cohort, the diagnostic accuracy for 90-d mortality based on the score had an AUC of 0.756, (95%CI: 0.598-0.915, P = 0.006). According to the cutoff, in the validation cohort BMI less than 18.5 kg/m2 (P < 0.001), CCI ≥ 1 (P = 0.001), ASA III/IV (P = 0.002), high NLR (P = 0.012), and the presence of ascites on CT exam (P = 0.004) were significantly associated with the high-risk group. The risk groups showed a significant association with first-line (P = 0.012), second-line chemotherapy (P = 0.009), 30-d (P = 0.013), and 90-d mortality (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The scoring system developed with 11 variables related to patient's performance status and medical condition was able to distinguish patients undergoing jejunostomy with high risk of 90 d mortality.

A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Jejunostomy and Nasogastric Feeding in Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Early postoperative enteral nutrition is recommended for patients undergoing esophagectomy; however, the optimum method of tube feeding remains controversial. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess two common enteral nutrition methods after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was performed with 120 patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy from January 2017 to December 2018. The patients were randomly divided so that 58 patients were in the jejunostomy feeding (JF) group and 62 patients were in the nasogastric feeding (NF) group. The postoperative outcomes, including complications, nutritional status, quality of life, and survival rate, were studied and used as the main parameters to compare the abovementioned tube feeding methods.

RESULTS

The incidence of overall complications was equivalent between the two groups (P = 0.625), except for bowel obstruction (which occurred 4 times in the JF group but did not occur in the NF group). In the first month after surgery (postoperative month 1, POM1), a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) was observed in the JF group (23.6 ± 3.2) than in the NF group (20.9 ± 3.5, P = 0.032). The global quality-of-life scores were better in the JF group than in the NF group (P < 0.001). In addition, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.816) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.564).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NF, JF provides more safety, efficacy, and utility as nutritional support for minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy patients who have a high incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, the higher risk of intestinal obstruction after JF requires attention.

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.

Outcomes of nutritional jejunostomy in the curative treatment of esophageal cancer

Substantial weight loss and eating problems are common before and after esophagectomy for cancer. The use of jejunostomy might prevent postoperative weight loss, but studies evaluating other outcomes are scarce. This study aims to assess the influence of jejunostomy on postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL), complications, reoperation, hospital stay, and survival. This prospective and population-based cohort study included all patients operated on for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer in Sweden in 2001-2005 with follow-up until 31st December 2016. Data regarding patient and tumor characteristics and treatment were prospectively collected. Multivariable logistic regression provided odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), whereas Cox regression provided hazard ratios with 95% CI. All risk estimates were adjusted for age, sex, tumor histology, stage, comorbidity, surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, and body mass index and weight loss at baseline. Among 397 patients, 181 (46%) received a jejunostomy during surgery. The use of jejunostomy did not influence the HRQOL at 6 months or 3 years after treatment. Jejunostomy users had no statistically significantly increased risk of postoperative complications (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.86-1.87) or reoperation (OR 1.70; 95% CI 0.88-3.28). Intensive unit care and length of hospital stay was the same independent of the use of jejunostomy. The all-cause mortality was not increased in the jejunostomy group (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.07). This study indicates that jejunostomy does not influence postoperative HRQOL, complications, or survival after esophageal cancer surgery, it can be considered a safe method for early enteral nutrition after esophageal cancer surgery but benefits for the patients need further investigations.

Outcomes after prophylactic gastrectomy for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and a CDH1 mutation have a 60-80 per cent lifetime risk of developing diffuse gastric cancer. Total prophylactic gastrectomy eliminates this risk, but is associated with considerable morbidity. The effectiveness (removal of all gastric mucosa) and outcomes of this procedure were evaluated retrospectively.

METHODS

All consecutive individuals undergoing a prophylactic gastrectomy for a CDH1 mutation or gastric signet ring cell foci at the authors' institute between 2005 and 2017 were included.

RESULTS

In 25 of 26 patients, intraoperative frozen-section examination (proximal resection margin) was used to verify complete removal of gastric mucosa. All definitive resection margins were free of gastric mucosa, but only after the proximal margin had been reresected in nine patients. In the first year after surgery, five of the 26 patients underwent a relaparotomy for adhesiolysis (2 patients) or jejunostomy-related complications (3 patients). Six patients were readmitted to the hospital within 1 year for nutritional and/or psychosocial support (4 patients) or surgical reintervention (2 patients). Mean weight loss after 1 year was 15 (95 per cent c.i. 12 to 18) per cent. For the 25 patients with a follow-up at 1 year or more, functional complaints were reported more frequently at 1 year than at 3 months after the operation: bile reflux (15 versus 11 patients respectively) and dumping (11 versus 7 patients). The majority of patients who worked or studied before surgery (15 of 19) had returned fully to these activities within 1 year.

CONCLUSION

The considerable morbidity and functional consequences of gastrectomy should be considered when counselling individuals with an inherited predisposition to diffuse gastric cancer. Intraoperative frozen-section examination is recommended to remove all risk-bearing gastric mucosa.

Feeding Jejunostomy after esophagectomy cannot be routinely recommended. Analysis of nutritional benefits and catheter-related complications

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer usually deal with malnourishment which increases postoperative morbimortality. The objective of this paper is to analyze the nutritional benefits of feeding jejunostomy (FJ) for early postoperative enteral nutrition (EN) and directly-related complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 100 patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer between 2008 and 2016.

RESULTS

FJ was placed in 47 patients. 82.98% reached EN requirements in FJ group, with a median EN re-start of 1.9 days and median days to objective requirements of 5 days. 51.06% developed directly-related FJ complication, 91.66% of them mild ones (gastrointestinal or catheter-related). 2 patients (4.25%) required re-intervention. No significant differences were shown in total protein and albumin seric levels during first postoperative week and in anastomotic leak rate between both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding jejunostomies are associated with a great number of complications although most are not life-threatening. Since its nutritional benefit is not proven FJ cannot routinely recommended after esophagectomy. However, the optimal pathway for EN reintroduction, including direct oral intake, is still a matter of debate.