Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after oesophagogastric surgery: a prospective randomized comparison

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>There appears to be an emerging consensus that early postoperative nutritional support benefits the high-risk patient by decreasing septic morbidity, maintaining immunocompetence and improving wound healing. Enteral nutrition via a feeding jejunostomy has been associated with serious complications, with a reported mortality rate as high as 10%, while total parenteral nutrition has also been associated with a wide variety of complications.<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-seven patients undergoing oesophagectomy or gastrectomy underwent pre-operative nutritional assessment and were randomized to receive either total parenteral nutrition (47 patients) or enteral nutrition (50 patients).<h4>Results</h4>There was no significant difference in the number of catheter-related complications between the two groups, but 9 (45%) patients in the total parenteral nutrition group had major morbidity (potentially fatal in two patients) requiring active intervention.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This study demonstrates enteral nutrition to be safe and associated with mainly reversible minor complications. It is probable that immediate postoperative enteral feeding conserves the gut's integrity. Whether this leads to a reduction in postoperative septic complications has not been demonstrated by this study although there appears to be a trend in this direction, supporting the concept of enteral feeding as 'primary therapy'. This can be safely, simply and economically achieved using a feeding jejunostomy placed at the time of surgery.