Advertisement

Dysphagia

, 24:378 | Cite as

Clinical Outcomes Comparing Parenteral and Nasogastric Tube Nutrition After Laryngeal and Pharyngeal Cancer Surgery

  • Junsun Ryu
  • Byung-Ho Nam
  • Yuh-Seog JungEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Nasogastric tube-assisted enteral feeding and parenteral feeding are utilized for nutritional support after major surgery. Although these nutritional supports have been compared before, there have been no comparative trials following surgery for laryngeal and pharyngeal cancer. In this study, 81 patients were randomized to total parenteral nutrition (TPN) or nasogastric tube nutrition (NGTN) after laryngopharyngeal cancer surgery. The two groups were well-matched demographically and clinically. Clinical outcomes such as time of commencement of oral feeding and hospital stay and complications such as fistula were similar in both groups. One case in the TPN group had catheter-related sepsis, whereas aspiration pneumonia occurred in four cases (9.8%) in the NGTN group. The daily cost of NGTN was $11.81 cheaper than that of TPN. Subjective symptoms of nasal and pharyngeal discomfort and scores on subjective swallowing were more severe in the NGTN group within the first postoperative week but became similar thereafter. Although there was no difference in objective postoperative outcomes between both groups, these results imply that each method had particular advantages and disadvantages. Nutritional support after laryngopharyngeal cancer surgery should be determined after full consideration of each patient’s conditions and surgical details along with economics.

Keywords

Total parenteral nutrition Nasogastric intubation Laryngeal neoplasms Enteral nutrition Deglutition Deglutition disorders 

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson C, Fuhrman MP. Nutrients and wound healing: still searching for the magic bullet. Nutr Clin Pract. 2005;20:331–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mechanick JI. Practical aspects of nutritional support for wound-healing patients. Am J Surg. 2004;188:52–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, Thomas S. Early enteral feeding versus “nil by mouth” after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ. 2001;323:773–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adam S, Batson S. A study of problems associated with the delivery of enteral feed in critically ill patients in five ICUs in the UK. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:261–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verschueren A, Monnier A, Attarian S, Lardillier D, Pouget J. Enteral and parenteral nutrition in the later stages of ALS: an observational study. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2009;10:42–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidegger CP, Darmon P, Pichard C. Enteral vs. parenteral nutrition for the critically ill patient: a combined support should be preferred. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:408–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desmond P, Raman R, Idikula J. Effect of nasogastric tubes on the nose and maxillary sinus. Crit Care Med. 1991;19:509–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huggins PS, Tuomi SK, Young C. Effects of nasogastric tubes on the young, normal swallowing mechanism. Dysphagia. 1999;14:157–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heyland DK. Parenteral nutrition in the critically-ill patient: more harm than good? Proc Nutr Soc. 2000;59:457–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kreymann KG, Berger MM, Deutz NE, Hiesmayr M, Jolliet P, Kazandjiev G, et al. ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition: intensive care. Clin Nutr. 2006;25:210–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brookes JT, Seikaly H, Diamond C, Mechor B, Harris JR. Prospective randomized trial comparing the effect of early suturing of tracheostomy sites on postoperative patient swallowing and rehabilitation. J Otolaryngol. 2006;35:77–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cleves MA, Sanchez N, Draheim M. Evaluation of two competing methods for calculating Charlson’s comorbidity index when analyzing short-term mortality using administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:903–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piccirillo JF, Spitznagel EL Jr, Vermani N, Costas I, Schnitzler M. Comparison of comorbidity indices for patients with head and neck cancer. Med Care. 2004;42:482–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stenson KM, MacCracken E, List M, Haraf DJ, Brockstein B, Weichselbaum R, et al. Swallowing function in patients with head and neck cancer prior to treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:371–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heidegger CP, Romand JA, Treggiari MM, Pichard C. Is it now time to promote mixed enteral and parenteral nutrition for the critically ill patient? Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:963–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomson A. The enteral vs parenteral nutrition debate revisited. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2008;32:474–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magne N, Marcy PY, Foa C, Falewee MN, Schneider M, Demard F, et al. Comparison between nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258:89–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bowling TE, Cliff B, Wright JW, Blackshaw PE, Perkins AC, Lobo DN. The effects of bolus and continuous nasogastric feeding on gastro-oesophageal reflux and gastric emptying in healthy volunteers: a randomised three-way crossover pilot study. Clin Nutr. 2008;27:608–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lai PB, Pang PC, Chan SK, Lau WY. Necrosis of the nasal ala after improper taping of a nasogastric tube. Int J Clin Pract. 2001;55:145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neves-Pinto RM, Carvalho A, Araujo E, Alberto C, Basilio-De-Oliviera, De Carvalho GA. Nasal septum giant pyogenic granuloma after a long lasting nasal intubation: case report. Rhinology. 2005;43:66–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Selcuk H, Soylu N, Albayram S, Selcuk D, Ozer H, Kocer N, et al. Endovascular treatment of persistent epistaxis due to pseudoaneurysm formation of the ophthalmic artery secondary to nasogastric tube. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2005;28:242–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Jonghe B, Appere-De-Vechi C, Fournier M, Tran B, Merrer J, Melchior JC, et al. A prospective survey of nutritional support practices in intensive care unit patients: what is prescribed? What is delivered? Crit Care Med. 2001;29:8–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shackcloth MJ, McCarron E, Kendall J, Russell GN, Pennefather SH, Tran J, et al. Randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of nasogastric drainage on tracheal acid aspiration following oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2006;93:547–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leong SC, Mahanta V. Securing the nasogastric tube in head and neck cancer patients. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:2089–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burns SM, Martin M, Robbins V, Friday T, Coffindaffer M, Burns SC, et al. Comparison of nasogastric tube securing methods and tube types in medical intensive care patients. Am J Crit Care. 1995;4:198–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Head and Neck Oncology Clinic, Department of OtolaryngologyNational Cancer CenterGoyang, Gyeonggi-doKorea
  2. 2.Cancer Biostatistics Branch, Center for Clinical TrialsNational Cancer CenterGoyang, Gyeonggi-doKorea

Personalised recommendations