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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108
Thrift AP (2016) The epidemic of oesophageal carcinoma: where are we now? Cancer Epidemiol 41:88–95
Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E (2010) Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 46:765–781
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 81:1277–1292
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
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 19:99–103
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 23:112–116
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 150:42–48
Crestanello JA, Deschamps C, Cassivi SD et al (2005) Selective management of intrathoracic anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:254–260
Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Bass CS et al (2004) Fast tracking after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy. Chest 126:1187–1194
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 12:320–324
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 247:721–729
Findlay JM, Gillies RS, Millo J et al (2014) Enhanced recovery for esophagectomy: a systematic review and evidence-based guidelines. Ann Surg 259:413–431
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 100:105–112
Blom RL, van Heijl M, Bemelman WA et al (2013) Initial experiences of an enhanced recovery protocol in esophageal surgery. World J Surg 37:2372–2378. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2135-1
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
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 261:1114–1123
Danish Esophago-Gastric Cancer Database (DECV). [Cited: 10.11.2015]. www.decv.gicancer.dk
ASA Physical Status Classification System. American Society of Anesthesiologists. (October 2014). [Cited: 15.06.2015]. https://www.asahq.org/quality-and-practice-management/standards-and-guidelines
Sobin LHGM, Wittekind C (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken
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 240:205–213
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7
Jiang K, Cheng L, Wang JJ et al (2009) Fast track clinical pathway implications in esophagogastrectomy. World J Gastroenterol 15:496–501
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
Authors disclose no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eberhard, K.E., Achiam, M.P., Rolff, H.C. et al. Comparison of “Nil by Mouth” Versus Early Oral Intake in Three Different Diet Regimens Following Esophagectomy. World J Surg 41, 1575–1583 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3870-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3870-5