Muhammad Shadab Khan*, Syeda Sarah Batool, Shah Muhammad, Jahangir Farman Ali, Haider Mendhi and Abdaal Waseem Khan

Department of GI and HBP Surgery, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi, Pakistan

*Corresponding Author: Muhammad Shadab Khan, Surgical Oncologist, Assistant Professor, Department of GI and HBP surgery, Sindh Institute of Urology and transplantation Karachi, Pakistan.

Received: July 10, 2021; Published: July 26, 2021

Citation: Muhammad Shadab Khan., et al. “Clinical Burden Related to Surgically Placed Feeding Enterostomy. A Single Center Study". Acta Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders 4.8 (2021): 53-57.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the incidence and severity of postoperative complications following surgically placed feeding enterostomy.

Introduction: Enteral nutrition is more advantageous compare to other forms of nutritional supplements. Enteral feeding tube placement is a relatively common general surgery procedure but there has been little standardization in their surgical technique and postoperative care. The aim of this study is to review indications, complications, and clinical burdens related to feeding tube placement and its long-term use.

Materials and Methods: Head and neck and upper gastrointestinal cancer patients presented in Sindh institute of urology and transplantation’s Oncology center from November 2017 till October 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Details reviewed from patient’s files at the time of initial admission and subsequent follow ups during study period. All data was collected as per Proforma requirement in retrospective manner while maintaining strict confidentiality protocol according to institutional Ethical review board protocol. Collected data was analyzed for results using SPSS version 23.0.

Results: During this study period, a total of 116 patients underwent feeding enterostomies in our institute. Male patients were 51.7% and mean BMI was 17.86 ± 2.43. The mean age at the time of surgery was 44.22 ± 14.02 years.

Out of total 63 patients (54.3%) develop complications. According to Clavein dindo classification 28.4% minor while 25.8% major complications were noted.

Subgroup analysis showed that complications were more common in the feeding jejunostomy group with a statistically significant P-value.

Conclusion: Understanding the clinical burden and complications related with feeding tubes will help in minimizing associated morbidity and mortality. Feeding gastrostomy because of low clinical burden and complications should be preferred over feeding jejunostomy where possible.

Keywords: Feeding Enterostomy; Cancer; Complication; Clavein Dindo Classification

Bibliography

1. Dann GC., et al. “An assessment of feeding jejunostomy tube placement at the time of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma: A seven-institution analysis of 837 patients from the U.S. gastric cancer collaborative”. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2 (2015): 195-202.
2. Alvarez-Sarrado E., et al. “Feeding Jejunostomy after esophagectomy cannot be routinely recommended. Analysis of nutritional benefits and catheter-related complications”. The American Journal of Surgery 1 (2019): 114-120.
3. Aoyagi T., et al. “Cancer cachexia, mechanism and treatment”. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology 4 (2015): 17-29.
4. Arends J., et al. “ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients”. Clinical Nutrition 1 (2017): 11-48.
5. Gyan E., et al. “Malnutrition in Patients With Cancer: Comparison of Perceptions by Patients, Relatives, and Physicians Results of the NutriCancer2012 Study”. JPEN Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1 (2018): 255-260.
6. Mason MC., et al. “Preoperative cancer cachexia and short-term outcomes following surgery”. Journal of Surgical Research 2 (2016): 398-406.
7. Patel SH., et al. “An assessment of feeding jejunostomy tube placement at the time of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma”. Journal of Surgical Oncology 107 (2013): 728-734.
8. Goldin AB., et al. “Emergency department visits and readmissions among children after gastrostomy tube placement”. The Journal of Pediatrics 174 (2016): 1-9.
9. American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. “Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients”. JPEN Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 33 (2002): 255-259.
10. Alvarez-Sarrado E., et al. “Feeding Jejunostomy after esophagectomy cannot be routinely recommended. Analysis of nutritional benefits and catheter-related complications”. The American Journal of Surgery1 (2019): 114-120.
11. Arends J., et al. “ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients”. Clinical Nutrition1 (2017): 11-48.
12. Gyan E., et al. “Malnutrition in Patients With Cancer: Comparison of Perceptions by Patients, Relatives, and Physicians Results of the NutriCancer2012 Study”. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition1 (2018): 255-260.
13. Aoyagi T., et al. “Cancer cachexia, mechanism and treatment”. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology4 (2015): 17-29.
14. Sun Z., et al. “Feeding jejunostomy tube placement during resection of gastric cancer”. The Journal of Surgical Oncology Research 200 (2016): 189-194.
15. Minarich MJ and Schwarz RE. “Experience with a simplified feeding jejunostomy technique for enteral nutrition following major visceral operation”. Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology 3 (2018): 44.
16. Goldin AB., et al. “Emergency department visits and readmissions among children after gastrostomy tube placement”. The Journal of Pediatrics 174 (2016): 1-9.

Copyright: © Muhammad Shadab Khan., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.