Single-Center Randomized Trial Comparing Feeding Jejunostomy with Nasojejunal Tube Placement in Patients Undergoing Transhiatal Esophagectomy Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.

backgroundEnteral nutrition is the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, the preferred mode of enteral nutrition (feeding jejunostomy (FJ) vs. nasojejunal (NJ) tube) remains contentious. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we compared FJ with NJ tube feeding in terms of safety, feasibility, efficacy, and quality-of-life (QOL) parameters in Indian patients undergoing trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE) for carcinoma esophagus. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis single-center, two-armed (FJ and NJ tube), non-inferiority RCT was conducted from March 2020 to January 2024. Forty-eight patients underwent THE with posterior-mediastinal-gastric pull-up and were randomized to NJ and FJ arms (24 in each group). The postoperative complications, catheter efficacy, and QOL parameters were compared between the two groups till the 6-week follow-up.

resultsIn this RCT, we found no significant difference in the occurrence of catheter-related complications, postoperative complication rate, catheter efficacy, and visual analog pain scores between patients with NJ tube and FJ, following THE for esophageal cancer. There was a significantly better self-reported physical domain QOL score noted in the NJ group, both at the time of discharge (44.7 ± 6.2 vs 39.8 + 5.6; p value, 0.005) and at the 6-week follow-up (55.4 ± 5.2 vs 48.6 ± 4.5; p value, < 0.001).

conclusionBased on the findings of our RCT, we conclude that both enteral access methods (NJ vs. FJ) exhibit comparable incidences of catheter-related complications. The use of NJ tube is a viable alternative to a surgical FJ, has the benefit of early removal, and saves the distress associated with a tube per abdomen.