The Economic Impact of Early Enteral Feeding in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Prospective Survey of 51 Consecutive Patients
Abstract
Early postoperative oral feeding has been demonstrated to be safe and not increase postoperative morbidity. There are conflicting reports about its effect on postoperative length of stay. Some patients will fail attempts at early postoperative feeding and may be relegated to a longer postoperative course. Few studies to date have attempted to identify cost savings associated with early oral support, and those identified address nasoenteric support only. Fifty-one consecutive patients were randomized into either a traditional postoperative feeding group or an early postoperative feeding group after their gastrointestinal surgery. Length of hospital stay, hospital costs (excluding operating room costs), morbidity, and time to tolerance of a diet were compared. There was a tendency toward increased nasogastric tube use in the early feeding arm, but the morbidity rates were similar. Length of hospital stay and costs were similar in both arms. Early postoperative enteral support does not reduce hospital stay, nursing workload, or costs. It may come at a cost of higher nasogastric tube use, however, without an increase in postoperative morbidity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In a recent RCT in colorectal cancer surgery patients, early oral feeding was safe and effective, with a shortened hospital stay as the primary benefit.
“In a recent RCT in 1592 colorectal cancer surgery patients, early oral feeding was demonstrated to be safe and effective, 1593 with a shortened hospital stay as the primary benefit [212].”
From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [212]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition
Thibault, R., Abbasoglu, O., Ioannou, E., Meija, L., Ottens-Oussoren, K., Pichard, C., Rothenberg, E., Rubin, D., Siljamäki-Ojansuu, U., Vaillant, M.-F., et al. (2021) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2021.09.039 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Zhuang, C.-L., Ye, X.-Z., Zhang, C.-J., Dong, Q.-T., Chen, B.-C., & Yu, Z. (2013) · Digestive Surgery · doi:10.1159/000353136 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lucha, P. A., Butler, R., Plichta, J., & Francis, M.
- Affiliations
- Naval Medical Center Portsmouth (US)
- Venue
- The American Surgeon™
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 187-190
- ISSN
- 0003-1348 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-9823
- OpenAlex
- W2417648332
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Surgeon (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
- Keywords
- early enteral nutrition, gastrointestinal surgery, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, postoperative morbidity, nursing workload, cost reduction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Humans, Intubation, Gastrointestinal, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Morbidity, Postoperative Care, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Time Factors, United States, Cost Savings, Hospital Costs
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