Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 17;15(1):142.
doi: 10.1186/s13019-020-01162-7.

Effectiveness of jejunostomy for enteral nutrition during complete thoracoscopic and laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in thoracic segment esophageal carcinoma

Affiliations

Effectiveness of jejunostomy for enteral nutrition during complete thoracoscopic and laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in thoracic segment esophageal carcinoma

Jieyong Tian et al. J Cardiothorac Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Although jejunostomy is widely used in complete thoracoscopic and laparoscopic minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, its clinical effectiveness remains undefined. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic and side effects of jejunostomy in patients undergoing Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for thoracic segment esophageal carcinoma.

Methods: A total of 1400 patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy in the Thoracic Surgery of our hospital from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Of these, 356 and 1044 were treated with nasojejunal feeding tubes (Nasojejunal group) and by jejunostomy (Jejunostomy group), respectively. Clinicopathologic factors, postoperative complications and tubule-related complications between the two groups were compared.

Results: Both groups were well-balanced for clinicopathological data, except tumor location, which was significantly different (P < 0.001). Operation time (208.8 ± 53.5 min vs. 218.1 ± 43.2 min) was shorter in the Jejunostomy group compared with the Nasojejunal group, while intraoperative (26.6 ± 10.4 min vs 18.4 ± 9.1 min) and postoperative (38.6 ± 6.9 min vs 18.5 ± 7.6 min) indwelling times of nutrition tubes were prolonged (all P < 0.05). Postoperative pulmonary infection (17.0% vs 22.2%), incision infection (0.2% vs 1.1%), nutrient tube slippage (0.2% vs 5.1%) and nutrient reflux 1 (0.1% vs 5.6%) rates were reduced in the Jejunostomy group compared with the Nasojejunal group (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, ileus rates perioperatively (1.7% vs 0.3%) and at 3 postoperative months (1.7% vs 0.3%) were both higher in the Jejunostomy group compared with the Nasojejunal group.

Conclusions: Jejunostomy is a reliable enteral nutrition method in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for thoracic segment esophageal carcinoma.

Keywords: Enteral nutrition; Esophageal neoplasm; Esophagectomy; Ivor-Lewis; Jejunostomy; McKowen; Nasointestinal tube.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart showing inclusion of patients in the study

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Domper Arnal MJ, Ferrández Arenas Á, Lanas AÁ. Esophageal cancer: risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and eastern countries. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(26):7933–7943. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i26.7933. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, Luketich JD. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet (London, England) 2013;381(9864):400–412. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60643-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huang F-L, Yu S-J. Esophageal cancer: risk factors, genetic association, and treatment. Asian J Surg. 2018;41(3):210–215. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2016.10.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tan LJ, Shen YX. Minimally invasive esophagectomy-technique and experience of Zhongshan hospital Fudan University. J Clin Surg. 2016;24(7):557–559.
    1. Yang Q, Wang YX, He M, Li J, Qi Z, Zhu SC, et al. Factors affecting on long-time survival in patients with stage III thoracic esophageal carcinoma after esophagectomy. Zhonghua zhong liu za zhi. 2016;38(7):530–537. - PubMed

MeSH terms