Melanie Baker1, Vanessa Halliday2, Robert N Williams1, David J Bowrey3. 1. Dept of Surgery, Leicester Royal Infirmary, LE1 5WW, United Kingdom. 2. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, United Kingdom. 3. Dept of Surgery, Leicester Royal Infirmary, LE1 5WW, United Kingdom. Electronic address: djb57@le.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: As improved outcomes after esophagectomy have been observed over the last two decades, the focus on care has shifted to survivorship and quality of life. The aim of this review was to determine changes in nutrition after esophagectomy and to assess the evidence for extended nutrition support. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to identify primary research reporting change in nutritional status a minimum of one month after esophagectomy. RESULTS: Changes in nutritional parameters reported by 18 studies indicated a weight loss of 5-12% at six months postoperatively. More than half of patients lost >10% of body weight at 12 months. One study reported a persistent weight loss of 14% from baseline three years after surgery. Three studies reporting on longer term follow up noted that 27%-95% of patients failed to regain their baseline weight. Changes in dietary intake (three studies) indicated inadequate energy and protein intake up to three years after surgery. Global quality of life scores reported in one study correlated with better weight preservation. There were a high frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms reported in six studies, most notably in the first year after surgery, but persisting up to 19 years. Extended enteral nutrition on a selective basis has been reported in several studies. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional status is compromised in the months/years following oesophagectomy and may never return to baseline levels. The causes/consequences of weight loss/impaired nutritional intake require further investigation. The role of extended nutritional support in this population remains unclear.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: As improved outcomes after esophagectomy have been observed over the last two decades, the focus on care has shifted to survivorship and quality of life. The aim of this review was to determine changes in nutrition after esophagectomy and to assess the evidence for extended nutrition support. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to identify primary research reporting change in nutritional status a minimum of one month after esophagectomy. RESULTS: Changes in nutritional parameters reported by 18 studies indicated a weight loss of 5-12% at six months postoperatively. More than half of patients lost >10% of body weight at 12 months. One study reported a persistent weight loss of 14% from baseline three years after surgery. Three studies reporting on longer term follow up noted that 27%-95% of patients failed to regain their baseline weight. Changes in dietary intake (three studies) indicated inadequate energy and protein intake up to three years after surgery. Global quality of life scores reported in one study correlated with better weight preservation. There were a high frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms reported in six studies, most notably in the first year after surgery, but persisting up to 19 years. Extended enteral nutrition on a selective basis has been reported in several studies. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional status is compromised in the months/years following oesophagectomy and may never return to baseline levels. The causes/consequences of weight loss/impaired nutritional intake require further investigation. The role of extended nutritional support in this population remains unclear.
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Gijs H K Berkelmans; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter B Soeters; Misha D P Luyer Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Katie Benton; Iain Thomson; Elisabeth Isenring; B Mark Smithers; Ekta Agarwal Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Hanneke W J van Eden; Jelle P Ruurda; Misha D P Luyer; Elles Steenhagen; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: David J Bowrey; Melanie Baker; Vanessa Halliday; Anne L Thomas; Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob; Karen Smith; Tom Morris; Arne Ring Journal: Trials Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 2.279