A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Jejunostomy and Nasogastric Feeding in Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsEsophagectomy Jejunostomy Enteral nutrition Complications
Zheng Tao and Dong Xu contributed to the conception/design of the work; Qi You and Xiaodong Sun contributed to the acquisition of data; Yan Zhang and Shaojin Zhu contributed to the analysis/interpretation of data; Zheng Tao and Zhengzheng Ni drafted the manuscript. All authors approved the final version submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
This study was supported by the Nature and Science Fund from Wannan Medical College, CN (Grant NO. WK2019F23,WK2018ZF10).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests and agree to publish this article.
- 1.Smeets BJJ, Luyer MDP. Nutritional interventions to improve recovery from postoperative ileus. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care. 2018; 21(5):394–398.Google Scholar
- 7.Yuen MTY, Tsang RK, Wong IYH, et al. Long-term pharyngeal dysphagia after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer-an investigation using videofluoroscopic swallow studies. Dis Esophagus. 2019; 32(1).Google Scholar
- 20.The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine.1995; 41(10):1403–9.Google Scholar
- 22.Anandavadivelan P, Martin L, Djarv T, et al. Nutrition Impact Symptoms Are Prognostic of Quality of Life and Mortality after Surgery for Oesophageal Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(9).Google Scholar
- 30.Parlar-Chun R, Lafferty-Prather M, Gonzalez V et al. Protocol: randomised trial to compare nasoduodenal tube and nasogastric tube feeding in infants with bronchiolitis on high-flow nasal cannula; Bronchiolitis and High-flow nasal cannula with Enteral Tube feeding Randomised (BHETR) trial. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5):e025405.Google Scholar