Cited by 146Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of early oral feeding (EOF) on postoperative cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal (CRG) complications after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Nil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is routinely practiced after esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive oral feeding on the first postoperative day (EOF group) or late oral feeding (LOF group) 7 days after surgery. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative CRG complications, and the secondary outcomes included bowel function recovery and short-term quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Between February 2014 and October 2015, 280 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 140 patients in the EOF group and 140 patients in the LOF group. EOF was noninferior to LOF for CRG complications (30.0% in the EOF group vs. 32.9% in the LOF group; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -13.8% to 8.0%). Compared with the LOF group, the EOF group showed significantly shorter time to first flatus (median of 2 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.001) and bowel movement (median of 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Two weeks after the operation, patients in the EOF group reported higher global QOL and function scores and lower symptom scores than patients in the LOF group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy is noninferior to the standard of care with regard to postoperative CRG complications. In addition, patients in the EOF group had a quicker recovery of bowel function and improved short-term QOL.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0000000000002304

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Cochrane review cautioned interpretation due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence.

    “cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-1599 quality evidence [214].”

    From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [214]

    The Study Design section identifies this paper as a single-center randomized trial, while the Discussion’s Limitations section discusses restrictions of that trial. Searches for a Cochrane review, substantial heterogeneity, and low-quality evidence found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed caution; no page numbers were available. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [1]Torre LA Bray F Siegel RL Global cancer statistics, 2012 CA Cancer J Clin 2015 65 87 108 25651787
  2. [2]Lerut T Moons J Coosemans W Postoperative complications after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction are correlated with early cancer recurrence: role of systematic grading of complications using the modified Clavien classification Ann Surg 2009 250 798 807 19809297
  3. [3]Biere SS van Berge Henegouwen MI Maas KW Bonavina L Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2012 379 1887 1892 22552194
  4. [4]Luketich JD Pennathur A Franchetti Y Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study Ann Surg 2015 261 702 707 25575253 PMC5074683
  5. [5]O'Keefe SJ A guide to enteral access procedures and enteral nutrition Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009 6 207 215 19347012
  6. [6]Sun HB Liu XB Zhang RX Early oral feeding following thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015 47 227 233 24743002
  7. [7]Rice TW Rusch VW Ishwaran H Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: data-driven staging for the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Cancer Staging Manuals Cancer 2010 116 3763 3773 20564099
  8. [8]Sihag S Wright CD Wain JC Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012 42 430 437 22345284
  9. [9]Sun HB Li Y Liu XB Embedded Three-Layer Esophagogastric Anastomosis Reduces Morbidity and Improves Short-Term Outcomes After Esophagectomy for Cancer Ann Thorac Surg 2016 101 1131 1138 26687140
  10. [10]Dindo D Demartines N Clavien PA Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey Ann Surg 2004 240 205 213 15273542 PMC1360123
  11. [11]Vlug MS Wind J van der Zaag E Systematic review of laparoscopic vs open colonic surgery within an enhanced recovery programme Colorectal Dis 2009 11 335 343 18727715
  12. [12]Minig L Biffi R Zanagnolo V Reduction of postoperative complication rate with the use of early oral feeding in gynecologic oncologic patients undergoing a major surgery: a randomized controlled trial Ann Surg Oncol 2009 16 3101 3110 19760046
  13. [13]Liu X Wang D Zheng L Is early oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery feasible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials PloS one 2014 9 e112062 25397686 PMC4232373
  14. [14]Tadano S Terashima H Fukuzawa J Early postoperative oral intake accelerates upper gastrointestinal anastomotic healing in the rat model J Surg Res 2011 169 202 208 20421119
  15. [15]Minig L Biffi R Zanagnolo V Early oral versus "traditional" postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intestinal resection: a randomized controlled trial Ann Surg Oncol 2009 16 1660 1668 19330379
  16. [16]Lassen K Kjaeve J Fetveit T Allowing normal food at will after major upper gastrointestinal surgery does not increase morbidity: a randomized multicenter trial Ann Surg 2008 247 721 729 18438106
  17. [17]Weijs TJ Berkelmans GH Nieuwenhuijzen GA Routes for early enteral nutrition after esophagectomy. A systematic review Clin Nutr 2015 34 1 6 25131601
  18. [18]de Boer AG van Lanschot JJ van Sandick JW Quality of life after transhiatal compared with extended transthoracic resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus J Clin Oncol 2004 22 4202 4208 15483031
  19. [19]Djarv T Blazeby JM Lagergren P Predictors of postoperative quality of life after esophagectomy for cancer J Clin Oncol 2009 27 1963 1968 19289614
  20. [20]Lagergren P Avery KN Hughes R Health-related quality of life among patients cured by surgery for esophageal cancer Cancer 2007 110 686 693 17582628

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, H.-B., Li, Y., Liu, X.-B., Zhang, R.-X., Wang, Z.-F., Lerut, T., Liu, C.-C., Fiorelli, A., Chao, Y.-K., Molena, D., Cerfolio, R. J., Ozawa, S., & Chang, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Zhengzhou University (CN)
  • Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center (TW)
  • University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
  • Chang Gung University (TW)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Tokai University (JP)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
  • Sun, Hai-Bo
  • Li, Yin
  • Liu, Xian-Ben
  • Wang, Zong-Fei
  • Cerfolio, Robert J.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2018-03
Volume
267
Issue
3
Pages
435-442
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2617525176
Cited by
146
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 3
FWCI
13.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Keywords
early oral feeding, esophageal cancer, postoperative complications, cardiac complications, respiratory complications, gastrointestinal complications, bowel function recovery, quality of life, non-inferiority
MeSH terms
Aged, Enteral Nutrition, Esophageal Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Lymph Node Excision, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Esophagectomy, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review