Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:58:08.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-operative nutritional support through jejunostomy feeding Vs parenteral nutrition among upper gastrointestinal cancer patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2012

R. Sringeri ,
K. Arndtz  and
S. C. Cooper
R. Sringeri
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology, The Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
K. Arndtz
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology, The Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
S. C. Cooper
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology, The Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 70 , Issue OCE5: Malnutrition Matters, Joint BAPEN and Nutrition Society Meeting, 29–30 November 2011, Harrogate , 2011 , E316
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Malnutrition is common in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer. Studies have shown benefits of peri-operative nutritional support in these patients. Commonly post-operative nutritional support is delivered enterally via a jejunostomy tube or parenterally. Two prospective randomized studies show there is no significant difference between these two methods with regards to complications but suggests enteral route to be safe, well tolerated and cost-effective(Reference Sand, Luostarinen and Matikainen1, Reference Baigrie and Devitt2). Whilst the two upper Gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons in Dudley share similar operative methods and techniques, one uses jejunostomy tube feeding, and the other parenteral nutrition.

Methods: Patients attending the Dudley Group of Hospitals for upper GI cancer surgery who received both methods of post-operative nutritional support since March 2009 were identified and comparisons of their outcomes made (n=90, notes available for 37). Data collected includes patient demographics, type of cancer, TNM staging, resection margins, mortality, length of hospital stay, duration of nutritional support, any complications related to feeding methods used and antibiotic usage to treat complications.

Results: Fifteen patients (12 males, median age 71 years) were fed jejunally. Oesophageal adeoncarcinoma (47%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (40%) being the commonest malignancy with T3–67% and N1–67%. Twenty two patients (18 males, median age 65 years) received parenteral nutrition. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (68%) being the commonest malignancy with T3–68%, N1–50% and N0–45%. In both groups there was no evidence of metastases pre-operatively.

Discussion: The power of this study is limited by the low number of patients, however, both methods of nutritional support provide comparable outcomes, with weight loss appearing inevitable, mostly in the peri-operative period. There is a slightly increased risk of complications in jejunostomy feeding group where as increased length of HDU and hospital stay, and antibiotic usage in parenteral feeding group was noted.

References

1.Sand, J, Luostarinen, M & Matikainen, M (Oct 1997) European Journal of Surgery vol. 163/10(761–6).Google Scholar
2.Baigrie, RJ, Devitt, PG & Watkin DS (Oct 1996) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery vol. 66/10(668–70).CrossRefGoogle Scholar