Kristine Elisabeth Eberhard1,2, Michael Patrick Achiam3,4, Hans Christian Rolff3, Mohamed Belmouhand3,4, Lars Bo Svendsen3,4, Morten Thorsteinsson3. 1. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. kristine.eberhard@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, 2200, Copenhagen, Denmark. kristine.eberhard@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, 2200, Copenhagen, Denmark.
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.
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.
Authors: John M Findlay; Richard S Gillies; Julian Millo; Bruno Sgromo; Robert E K Marshall; Nicholas D Maynard Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rachel L G M Blom; Mark van Heijl; Willem A Bemelman; Markus W Hollmann; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Olivier R C Busch; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jitesh B Shewale; Arlene M Correa; Carla M Baker; Nicole Villafane-Ferriol; Wayne L Hofstetter; Victoria S Jordan; Henrik Kehlet; Katie M Lewis; Reza J Mehran; Barbara L Summers; Diane Schaub; Sonia A Wilks; Stephen G Swisher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rudolph W Koster; Michael A Baubin; Leo L Bossaert; Antonio Caballero; Pascal Cassan; Maaret Castrén; Cristina Granja; Anthony J Handley; Koenraad G Monsieurs; Gavin D Perkins; Violetta Raffay; Claudio Sandroni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Li-Xiang Mei; Guan-Biao Liang; Lei Dai; Yong-Yong Wang; Ming-Wu Chen; Jun-Xian Mo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Richard Zheng; Courtney L Devin; Michael J Pucci; Adam C Berger; Ernest L Rosato; Francesco Palazzo Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 5.742