Literature DB >> 19255706

Clinical outcomes comparing parenteral and nasogastric tube nutrition after laryngeal and pharyngeal cancer surgery.

Junsun Ryu1, Byung-Ho Nam, Yuh-Seog Jung.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19255706     DOI: 10.1007/s00455-009-9213-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dysphagia        ISSN: 0179-051X            Impact factor:   3.438


  26 in total

Review 1.  Nutrients and wound healing: still searching for the magic bullet.

Authors:  Cheryl Thompson; M Patricia Fuhrman
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.080

2.  Comparison between nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy in advanced head and neck cancer patients.

Authors:  N Magné; P Y Marcy; C Foa; M N Falewee; M Schneider; F Demard; R J Bensadoun
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

4.  ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Intensive care.

Authors:  K G Kreymann; M M Berger; N E P Deutz; M Hiesmayr; P Jolliet; G Kazandjiev; G Nitenberg; G van den Berghe; J Wernerman; C Ebner; W Hartl; C Heymann; C Spies
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 7.324

5.  A study of problems associated with the delivery of enteral feed in critically ill patients in five ICUs in the UK.

Authors:  S Adam; S Batson
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Securing the nasogastric tube in head and neck cancer patients.

Authors:  Samuel Chee Leong; Vibhuti Mahanta
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Enteral and parenteral nutrition in the later stages of ALS: an observational study.

Authors:  Annie Verschueren; Armelle Monnier; Shahram Attarian; Dominique Lardillier; Jean Pouget
Journal:  Amyotroph Lateral Scler       Date:  2009-02

Review 8.  Enteral vs. parenteral nutrition for the critically ill patient: a combined support should be preferred.

Authors:  Claudia-Paula Heidegger; Patrice Darmon; Claude Pichard
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.687

9.  Randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of nasogastric drainage on tracheal acid aspiration following oesophagectomy.

Authors:  M J Shackcloth; E McCarron; J Kendall; G N Russell; S H Pennefather; J Tran; R D Page
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Comparison of nasogastric tube securing methods and tube types in medical intensive care patients.

Authors:  S M Burns; M Martin; V Robbins; T Friday; M Coffindaffer; S C Burns; J E Burns
Journal:  Am J Crit Care       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.228

View more
  7 in total

1.  Advantages of enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition.

Authors:  David S Seres; Monika Valcarcel; Alexandra Guillaume
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 2.  Malnutrition and cachexia in patients with head and neck cancer treated with (chemo)radiotherapy.

Authors:  Mojca Gorenc; Nada Rotovnik Kozjek; Primož Strojan
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-03-29

3.  Enteral nutrition provides favorable postoperative outcomes for patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Xuechun Kuang; Guie She; Yanhui Shi; Zhiyou Yang; Jun Li; Zhipeng Zhang
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-05

Review 4.  Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Oliver J Schofield-Robinson; Phil Alderson; Andrew F Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-06-08

Review 5.  The economic burden of head and neck cancer: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Erika Wissinger; Ingolf Griebsch; Juliane Lungershausen; Talia Foster; Chris L Pashos
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Parenteral nutrition at the palliative phase of advanced cancer: the ALIM-K study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lionel Pazart; Elodie Cretin; Ghislain Grodard; Cecile Cornet; Florence Mathieu-Nicot; Franck Bonnetain; Mariette Mercier; Patrice Cuynet; Carole Bouleuc; Regis Aubry
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Cervical oesophagostomy in patients with severe dysphagia following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Y-J Wang; W-X Chen; J-L Zhang; F-Y He; Z-F Zhu; Y Zeng; F Yang; S-C Tang
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 1.469

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.