Dataset Information

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to evaluate the impact of early oral feeding (EOF) on postoperative cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal (CRG) complications after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Nil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is routinely practiced after esophagectomy. METHODS:Patients were randomly allocated to receive oral feeding on the first postoperative day (EOF group) or late oral feeding (LOF group) 7 days after surgery. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative CRG complications, and the secondary outcomes included bowel function recovery and short-term quality of life (QOL). RESULTS:Between February 2014 and October 2015, 280 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 140 patients in the EOF group and 140 patients in the LOF group. EOF was noninferior to LOF for CRG complications (30.0% in the EOF group vs. 32.9% in the LOF group; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -13.8% to 8.0%). Compared with the LOF group, the EOF group showed significantly shorter time to first flatus (median of 2 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.001) and bowel movement (median of 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Two weeks after the operation, patients in the EOF group reported higher global QOL and function scores and lower symptom scores than patients in the LOF group. CONCLUSIONS:In patients after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy is noninferior to the standard of care with regard to postoperative CRG complications. In addition, patients in the EOF group had a quicker recovery of bowel function and improved short-term QOL.

SUBMITTER: Sun HB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5937132 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

Sun Hai-Bo HB Li Yin Y Liu Xian-Ben XB Zhang Rui-Xiang RX Wang Zong-Fei ZF Lerut Toni T Liu Chia-Chuan CC Fiorelli Alfonso A Chao Yin-Kai YK Molena Daniela D Cerfolio Robert J RJ Ozawa Soji S Chang Andrew C AC

Annals of surgery 20180301 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Our objective was to evaluate the impact of early oral feeding (EOF) on postoperative cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal (CRG) complications after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.<h4>Summary background data</h4>Nil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is routinely practiced after esophagectomy.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomly allocated to receive oral feeding on the first postoperative day (EOF group) or late oral feeding (LOF group) 7 ...[more]

PMID: 28549015

Similar Datasets

Project description:To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).Patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Dataset Information

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

Publications

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets