Xiang Li1, Shi Yan1, Yuanyuan Ma1, Shaolei Li1, Yaqi Wang1, Xing Wang1, Yuzhao Wang1, Jia Wang1, Chao Lv1, Yue Yang1, Nan Wu2. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Thoracic Surgery II, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Thoracic Surgery II, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China. nanwu@bjmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer occupies a vital position in fatal cancer-related disease, with esophagectomy procedures helping to improve patient survival. The timing when oral intake should be resumed after esophagectomy and whether early oral feeding (EOF) or delayed oral feeding (DOF) should be the optimal regimen are controversial. METHODS: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library) were searched. All records were screened by two authors through full-text reading. Data on the anastomotic leakage rate were extracted and synthesized in meta-analyses. Postoperative pneumonia rate and length of hospital stay were also assessed. RESULTS: Seven studies from 49 records were included after full-text reading; 1595 patients were totally included in the analysis. No significant difference was observed between the EOF and DOF groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-4.03; p = 0.2495; I2 = 70%). Higher anastomotic leakage rate was observed in EOF compared with DOF (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.56-5.34; p = 0.0007; I2 = 10%) in the open subgroup. No significant difference was observed in the MIE (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.22-1.02; p = 0.0564; I2 = 0%). Patients performed similarly in pneumonia (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.745; I2 = 34%). In cervical subgroup, anastomosis leakage may be less in DOF (OR 2.42 95% CI 1.26-4.64; p = 0.0651; I2 = 58%), while in thoracic subgroup, there is no obvious difference (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.46-1.61; p = 0.01; I2 = 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leakage related to the timing of oral feeding after open esophagectomy, which is more favorable to the DOF regimen. However, timing of oral feeding did not impair anastomotic healing in patients undergoing MIE.
BACKGROUND:Esophageal cancer occupies a vital position in fatal cancer-related disease, with esophagectomy procedures helping to improve patient survival. The timing when oral intake should be resumed after esophagectomy and whether early oral feeding (EOF) or delayed oral feeding (DOF) should be the optimal regimen are controversial. METHODS: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library) were searched. All records were screened by two authors through full-text reading. Data on the anastomotic leakage rate were extracted and synthesized in meta-analyses. Postoperative pneumonia rate and length of hospital stay were also assessed. RESULTS: Seven studies from 49 records were included after full-text reading; 1595 patients were totally included in the analysis. No significant difference was observed between the EOF and DOF groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-4.03; p = 0.2495; I2 = 70%). Higher anastomotic leakage rate was observed in EOF compared with DOF (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.56-5.34; p = 0.0007; I2 = 10%) in the open subgroup. No significant difference was observed in the MIE (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.22-1.02; p = 0.0564; I2 = 0%). Patients performed similarly in pneumonia (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.745; I2 = 34%). In cervical subgroup, anastomosis leakage may be less in DOF (OR 2.42 95% CI 1.26-4.64; p = 0.0651; I2 = 58%), while in thoracic subgroup, there is no obvious difference (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.46-1.61; p = 0.01; I2 = 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leakage related to the timing of oral feeding after open esophagectomy, which is more favorable to the DOF regimen. However, timing of oral feeding did not impair anastomotic healing in patients undergoing MIE.
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