Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22753430›Full record

ReviewInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2012

Is routine postoperative enteral feeding after oesophagectomy worthwhile?

George A C Wheble, Ruth A Benson, Omar A Khan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of the nutritional consequences of esophagectomy.Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. PROGRAM OF INTESTINAL REHABILITATION AND EARLY POSTOPERATIVE ENTERAL NUTRITION: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Complications of Feeding Jejunostomy Tubes in Patients with Gastroesophageal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

George A C WhebleDepartment of Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK.
Ruth A Benson
Omar A Khan
Queen Alexandra Hospital · GBSt George's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A best evidence topic in surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether, in patients undergoing an oesophagectomy for cancer, immediate postoperative enteral feeding (via percutaneous jejunostomy or nasojejunostomy) provides better patient outcomes as compared to waiting until oral feeding can be instituted. Four randomized controlled trials represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The first study randomized 25 patients into enteral feeding via jejunostomy (n = 13) versus a routine diet without jejunostomy (n = 12). The authors found no statistical difference in outcomes including length of stay, anastomotic complications and mortality. They did not report any catheter-related complications. A second study included patients undergoing an oesophagectomy or a pancreatodudenectomy, randomized to immediate postoperative jejunostomy feeding (n = 13) or remaining unfed for 6 days (n = 15). They reported one incident of detachment of the catheter from the abdominal wall. They also noted a statistically significant decrease in vital capacity and FEV1 in enterally fed patients. There was no difference in length of stay or anastomotic complications. They concluded that there was no indication for routine use of immediate postoperative enteral feeding in those patients without significant preoperative malnutrition. A third report randomized their post-oesophagectomy patients into enteral feeding via jejunostomy (n = 20) versus crystalloid only (n = 20). The also found no difference in length of stay, anastomotic leak rate or mortality. One catheter was removed due to concerns over respiratory function. They also concluded that there was no measurable benefit in early enteral feeding. The last of these 4 studies randomized patients into naso-duodenal feeding (n = 71) and jejunostomy feeding groups (n = 79). As in previous trials, they found no statistically significant difference between length of stay or anastomotic leak rates. Mortality was higher in the jejunostomy group, although the team did not attribute the deaths to the catheter. They found both methods equally effective in providing postoperative nutrition. In summary, all the trials concluded that routine postoperative enteral nutrition was feasible, but there was no evidence suggesting that it conferred any clinical benefits.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionEsophagectomyAnastomotic LeakBenchmarkingEatingEsophageal NeoplasmsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansJejunostomyLength of StayPostoperative CareRecovery of FunctionTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22753430
PMCPMC3445352
OpenAlexW2105492108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.