Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 6/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Scientific Report

Comparison of “Nil by Mouth” Versus Early Oral Intake in Three Different Diet Regimens Following Esophagectomy

Authors: Kristine Elisabeth Eberhard, Michael Patrick Achiam, Hans Christian Rolff, Mohamed Belmouhand, Lars Bo Svendsen, Morten Thorsteinsson

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The literature on oral intake after esophagectomy and its influence on anastomotic leakage and complications is sparse.

Methods

This retrospective study included 359 patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 2011 and August 2015. Three oral intake protocols were evaluated: regimen 1, nil by mouth until postoperative day (POD) 7 followed by a normal diet; regimen 2, oral intake of clear fluids from POD 1 followed by a normal diet; regimen 3, nil by mouth until POD 7 followed by a slow increase to a blended diet. The outcome endpoints were: (1) anastomotic leakage, (2) complications [severity and number described using the Dindo–Clavien Classification and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI)] and (3) length of stay. A multivariate logistic regression model was obtained for CCI and anastomotic leakage using Wald’s stepwise selection.

Results

CCI was significantly lower in regimen 3 (16 vs. 22 and 26 in regimen 1 and 2, p = 0.027). Additionally, significantly fewer patients in regimen 3 suffered from severe complications of Dindo–Clavien grade IIIb–IV (p = 0.025). The incidence of anastomotic leakage reached its lowest in regimen 3, 2%, compared to 7–9%. Multivariate analyses revealed that high American Society of Anesthesiologist score was a predicting factor for both CCI and anastomotic leakage.

Conclusion

The study indicates that nil by mouth until postoperative day 7 followed by a slow increase to a blended diet after esophagectomy results in less severe complications and a tendency of fewer anastomotic leakages. Multiple comorbidities proved to be an important predictive factor of the postoperative course.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108CrossRefPubMed Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Thrift AP (2016) The epidemic of oesophageal carcinoma: where are we now? Cancer Epidemiol 41:88–95CrossRefPubMed Thrift AP (2016) The epidemic of oesophageal carcinoma: where are we now? Cancer Epidemiol 41:88–95CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E (2010) Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 46:765–781CrossRefPubMed Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E (2010) Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 46:765–781CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Koster RW, Baubin MA, Bossaert LL et al (2010) European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation 81:1277–1292CrossRefPubMed Koster RW, Baubin MA, Bossaert LL et al (2010) European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation 81:1277–1292CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit 2015. The Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (AUGIS), British Society of Gastroenterologists (BSG), The Clinical Effectiveness Unit at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Health and Social Care Information Centre. [Cited: 27.02.2016]. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/og National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit 2015. The Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (AUGIS), British Society of Gastroenterologists (BSG), The Clinical Effectiveness Unit at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Health and Social Care Information Centre. [Cited: 27.02.2016]. http://​www.​hscic.​gov.​uk/​og
6.
go back to reference Rutegard M, Lagergren P, Rouvelas I et al (2012) Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage and mortality after esophageal cancer resection: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 19:99–103CrossRefPubMed Rutegard M, Lagergren P, Rouvelas I et al (2012) Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage and mortality after esophageal cancer resection: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 19:99–103CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Escofet X, Manjunath A, Twine C et al (2010) Prevalence and outcome of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after esophagectomy in a UK regional cancer network. Dis Esophagus 23:112–116CrossRefPubMed Escofet X, Manjunath A, Twine C et al (2010) Prevalence and outcome of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after esophagectomy in a UK regional cancer network. Dis Esophagus 23:112–116CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kofoed SC, Calatayud D, Jensen LS et al (2015) Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after gastroesophageal cancer resection is associated with increased risk of recurrence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 150:42–48CrossRefPubMed Kofoed SC, Calatayud D, Jensen LS et al (2015) Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after gastroesophageal cancer resection is associated with increased risk of recurrence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 150:42–48CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Crestanello JA, Deschamps C, Cassivi SD et al (2005) Selective management of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:254–260CrossRefPubMed Crestanello JA, Deschamps C, Cassivi SD et al (2005) Selective management of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:254–260CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Bass CS et al (2004) Fast tracking after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy. Chest 126:1187–1194CrossRefPubMed Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Bass CS et al (2004) Fast tracking after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy. Chest 126:1187–1194CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Ford SJ, Adams D, Dudnikov S et al (2014) The implementation and effectiveness of an enhanced recovery programme after oesophago-gastrectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 12:320–324CrossRefPubMed Ford SJ, Adams D, Dudnikov S et al (2014) The implementation and effectiveness of an enhanced recovery programme after oesophago-gastrectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 12:320–324CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Lassen K, Kjaeve J, Fetveit T et al (2008) Allowing normal food at will after major upper gastrointestinal surgery does not increase morbidity: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 247:721–729CrossRefPubMed Lassen K, Kjaeve J, Fetveit T et al (2008) Allowing normal food at will after major upper gastrointestinal surgery does not increase morbidity: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 247:721–729CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Findlay JM, Gillies RS, Millo J et al (2014) Enhanced recovery for esophagectomy: a systematic review and evidence-based guidelines. Ann Surg 259:413–431CrossRefPubMed Findlay JM, Gillies RS, Millo J et al (2014) Enhanced recovery for esophagectomy: a systematic review and evidence-based guidelines. Ann Surg 259:413–431CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Preston SR, Markar SR, Baker CR et al (2013) Impact of a multidisciplinary standardized clinical pathway on perioperative outcomes in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 100:105–112CrossRefPubMed Preston SR, Markar SR, Baker CR et al (2013) Impact of a multidisciplinary standardized clinical pathway on perioperative outcomes in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 100:105–112CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Li C, Ferri LE, Mulder DS et al (2012) An enhanced recovery pathway decreases duration of stay after esophagectomy. Surgery 152:606–614 discussion 614–606 CrossRefPubMed Li C, Ferri LE, Mulder DS et al (2012) An enhanced recovery pathway decreases duration of stay after esophagectomy. Surgery 152:606–614 discussion 614–606 CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Shewale JB, Correa AM, Baker CM et al (2015) Impact of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol on esophageal cancer patient outcomes and hospital charges. Ann Surg 261:1114–1123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shewale JB, Correa AM, Baker CM et al (2015) Impact of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol on esophageal cancer patient outcomes and hospital charges. Ann Surg 261:1114–1123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Sobin LHGM, Wittekind C (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken Sobin LHGM, Wittekind C (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken
21.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7CrossRefPubMed Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of “Nil by Mouth” Versus Early Oral Intake in Three Different Diet Regimens Following Esophagectomy
Authors
Kristine Elisabeth Eberhard
Michael Patrick Achiam
Hans Christian Rolff
Mohamed Belmouhand
Lars Bo Svendsen
Morten Thorsteinsson
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3870-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

World Journal of Surgery 6/2017 Go to the issue