Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach
McKeown-type esophagectomy combined with retrosternal reconstruction is a common surgical treatment for esophageal cancer. Various enteral feeding options are available post-esophagectomy, but no definitive preference exists. "Retrosternal Route Gastrostomy Feeding (RGF)" was developed as...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2014-03, Vol.9 (3), p.e89190-e89190 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e89190 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | e89190 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Huang, Kenan Wu, Bin Ding, Xinyu Xu, Zhifei Tang, Hua |
| description | McKeown-type esophagectomy combined with retrosternal reconstruction is a common surgical treatment for esophageal cancer. Various enteral feeding options are available post-esophagectomy, but no definitive preference exists.
"Retrosternal Route Gastrostomy Feeding (RGF)" was developed as an alternative enteral feeding approach that requires few additional surgical interventions. RGF is based on McKeown-type esophagectomy. We retrospectively compared RGF (n = 121) to jejunostomy feeding (JF) (n = 153) in 274 patients at the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery in Changzheng Hospital (Shanghai, China) between June 2008 and Sept. 2012. Data pertaining to efficacy and procedural complications were compared among patients.
RGF had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 15 days, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0089190 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1509205441</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A478754430</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d76d3f1a11b646f4b02d3d000f8ad8d7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A478754430</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-390114aef2aa7c9c87e33b1c1e3d0ad69da53a5bf3141c7102070de4095f4d193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjEnTTy-EZfFjYGHFr9twmpx0MrRNTdLB_femM91lK3shvUg5ed73nJzkRNFzStaUFfTdzoy2h3Y9mB7XhJQVrciD6JRWLFnlCWEP7_yfRE-c2xGSsTLPH0cnSZpnZZGz08h9Nc6v0JlhCw0Kb7rr2I81xgpR6r55H0Ns0VvjhrCr9xgL0w1gtTN9bFS8w93YB4tJB70MdG_22MYNuEl0iM9WMQyDNSC2T6NHClqHz-b1LPr56eOPiy-ry6vPm4vzy5UostKvWEUoTQFVAlCISpQFMlZTQZFJAjKvJGQMsloxmlJRUJKQgkhMSZWpVIazn0Uvj75Daxyf--U4zUiVkCxNaSA2R0Ia2PHB6g7sNTeg-SFgbMPBei1a5LLIJVMUKK3zNFdpTRIZ6iBElSBLWQSvD3O2se5QCuy9hXZhutzp9ZY3Zs9ZlSeMkWDwZjaw5veIzvNOO4FtCz2acaqbhoaEK5zqfvUPev_pZqqBcADdKxPyismUn6dFWQTokHZ9DxU-iZ0W4XEpHeILwduFIDAe__gGRuf45vu3_2evfi3Z13fYLULrt860o9emd0swPYIivDBnUd02mRI-zcZNN_g0G3yejSB7cfeCbkU3w8D-Ar3yCy4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1509205441</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Huang, Kenan ; Wu, Bin ; Ding, Xinyu ; Xu, Zhifei ; Tang, Hua</creator><contributor>Yendamuri, Sai</contributor><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kenan ; Wu, Bin ; Ding, Xinyu ; Xu, Zhifei ; Tang, Hua ; Yendamuri, Sai</creatorcontrib><description>McKeown-type esophagectomy combined with retrosternal reconstruction is a common surgical treatment for esophageal cancer. Various enteral feeding options are available post-esophagectomy, but no definitive preference exists.
"Retrosternal Route Gastrostomy Feeding (RGF)" was developed as an alternative enteral feeding approach that requires few additional surgical interventions. RGF is based on McKeown-type esophagectomy. We retrospectively compared RGF (n = 121) to jejunostomy feeding (JF) (n = 153) in 274 patients at the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery in Changzheng Hospital (Shanghai, China) between June 2008 and Sept. 2012. Data pertaining to efficacy and procedural complications were compared among patients.
RGF had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 15 days, p<0.001) and time to removal of the feeding tube (9 vs. 14 days, p<0.001) compared to JF. Bowel obstruction (0.0% vs. 7.2% p = 0.003), abdominal distension (9.1% vs. 19% p = 0.022), and the occurrence of pneumonia (11.6% vs. 26.1% p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the RGF group. Feeding tube related complications and the associated morbidity rate were reduced in the RGF group. The two groups had similar tolerance to surgery.
Our data suggests that RGF is a safe post-esophagectomy enteral feeding alternative to JF.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089190</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24658763</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Aged ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cancer ; Cancer surgery ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Comparative analysis ; Complications ; Distension ; Enteral feeding ; Enteral nutrition ; Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects ; Enteral Nutrition - methods ; Esophageal cancer ; Esophagectomy ; Esophagus ; Feeding ; Female ; Gastrointestinal diseases ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Gastrostomy - adverse effects ; Gastrostomy - methods ; Heart surgery ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Intestine ; Male ; Malnutrition ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Morbidity ; Nutrition ; Ostomy ; Parenteral nutrition ; Patients ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgery ; Therapeutics</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-03, Vol.9 (3), p.e89190-e89190</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Huang et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2014 Huang et al 2014 Huang et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-390114aef2aa7c9c87e33b1c1e3d0ad69da53a5bf3141c7102070de4095f4d193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-390114aef2aa7c9c87e33b1c1e3d0ad69da53a5bf3141c7102070de4095f4d193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962330/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962330/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2929,23870,27928,27929,53795,53797</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24658763$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Yendamuri, Sai</contributor><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kenan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Xinyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Zhifei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Hua</creatorcontrib><title>Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>McKeown-type esophagectomy combined with retrosternal reconstruction is a common surgical treatment for esophageal cancer. Various enteral feeding options are available post-esophagectomy, but no definitive preference exists.
"Retrosternal Route Gastrostomy Feeding (RGF)" was developed as an alternative enteral feeding approach that requires few additional surgical interventions. RGF is based on McKeown-type esophagectomy. We retrospectively compared RGF (n = 121) to jejunostomy feeding (JF) (n = 153) in 274 patients at the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery in Changzheng Hospital (Shanghai, China) between June 2008 and Sept. 2012. Data pertaining to efficacy and procedural complications were compared among patients.
RGF had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 15 days, p<0.001) and time to removal of the feeding tube (9 vs. 14 days, p<0.001) compared to JF. Bowel obstruction (0.0% vs. 7.2% p = 0.003), abdominal distension (9.1% vs. 19% p = 0.022), and the occurrence of pneumonia (11.6% vs. 26.1% p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the RGF group. Feeding tube related complications and the associated morbidity rate were reduced in the RGF group. The two groups had similar tolerance to surgery.
Our data suggests that RGF is a safe post-esophagectomy enteral feeding alternative to JF.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer surgery</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Distension</subject><subject>Enteral feeding</subject><subject>Enteral nutrition</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - methods</subject><subject>Esophageal cancer</subject><subject>Esophagectomy</subject><subject>Esophagus</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal diseases</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Gastrostomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gastrostomy - methods</subject><subject>Heart surgery</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malnutrition</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Parenteral nutrition</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Therapeutics</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjEnTTy-EZfFjYGHFr9twmpx0MrRNTdLB_femM91lK3shvUg5ed73nJzkRNFzStaUFfTdzoy2h3Y9mB7XhJQVrciD6JRWLFnlCWEP7_yfRE-c2xGSsTLPH0cnSZpnZZGz08h9Nc6v0JlhCw0Kb7rr2I81xgpR6r55H0Ns0VvjhrCr9xgL0w1gtTN9bFS8w93YB4tJB70MdG_22MYNuEl0iM9WMQyDNSC2T6NHClqHz-b1LPr56eOPiy-ry6vPm4vzy5UostKvWEUoTQFVAlCISpQFMlZTQZFJAjKvJGQMsloxmlJRUJKQgkhMSZWpVIazn0Uvj75Daxyf--U4zUiVkCxNaSA2R0Ia2PHB6g7sNTeg-SFgbMPBei1a5LLIJVMUKK3zNFdpTRIZ6iBElSBLWQSvD3O2se5QCuy9hXZhutzp9ZY3Zs9ZlSeMkWDwZjaw5veIzvNOO4FtCz2acaqbhoaEK5zqfvUPev_pZqqBcADdKxPyismUn6dFWQTokHZ9DxU-iZ0W4XEpHeILwduFIDAe__gGRuf45vu3_2evfi3Z13fYLULrt860o9emd0swPYIivDBnUd02mRI-zcZNN_g0G3yejSB7cfeCbkU3w8D-Ar3yCy4</recordid><startdate>20140321</startdate><enddate>20140321</enddate><creator>Huang, Kenan</creator><creator>Wu, Bin</creator><creator>Ding, Xinyu</creator><creator>Xu, Zhifei</creator><creator>Tang, Hua</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140321</creationdate><title>Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach</title><author>Huang, Kenan ; Wu, Bin ; Ding, Xinyu ; Xu, Zhifei ; Tang, Hua</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-390114aef2aa7c9c87e33b1c1e3d0ad69da53a5bf3141c7102070de4095f4d193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer surgery</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Distension</topic><topic>Enteral feeding</topic><topic>Enteral nutrition</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - methods</topic><topic>Esophageal cancer</topic><topic>Esophagectomy</topic><topic>Esophagus</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal diseases</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Gastrostomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gastrostomy - methods</topic><topic>Heart surgery</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malnutrition</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Parenteral nutrition</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Therapeutics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kenan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Xinyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Zhifei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Hua</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Kenan</au><au>Wu, Bin</au><au>Ding, Xinyu</au><au>Xu, Zhifei</au><au>Tang, Hua</au><au>Yendamuri, Sai</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-03-21</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e89190</spage><epage>e89190</epage><pages>e89190-e89190</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>McKeown-type esophagectomy combined with retrosternal reconstruction is a common surgical treatment for esophageal cancer. Various enteral feeding options are available post-esophagectomy, but no definitive preference exists.
"Retrosternal Route Gastrostomy Feeding (RGF)" was developed as an alternative enteral feeding approach that requires few additional surgical interventions. RGF is based on McKeown-type esophagectomy. We retrospectively compared RGF (n = 121) to jejunostomy feeding (JF) (n = 153) in 274 patients at the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery in Changzheng Hospital (Shanghai, China) between June 2008 and Sept. 2012. Data pertaining to efficacy and procedural complications were compared among patients.
RGF had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 vs. 15 days, p<0.001) and time to removal of the feeding tube (9 vs. 14 days, p<0.001) compared to JF. Bowel obstruction (0.0% vs. 7.2% p = 0.003), abdominal distension (9.1% vs. 19% p = 0.022), and the occurrence of pneumonia (11.6% vs. 26.1% p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the RGF group. Feeding tube related complications and the associated morbidity rate were reduced in the RGF group. The two groups had similar tolerance to surgery.
Our data suggests that RGF is a safe post-esophagectomy enteral feeding alternative to JF.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>24658763</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0089190</doi><tpages>e89190</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2014-03, Vol.9 (3), p.e89190-e89190 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1509205441 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Abdomen Aged Biology and Life Sciences Cancer Cancer surgery Cancer therapies Care and treatment Comparative analysis Complications Distension Enteral feeding Enteral nutrition Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects Enteral Nutrition - methods Esophageal cancer Esophagectomy Esophagus Feeding Female Gastrointestinal diseases Gastrointestinal surgery Gastrostomy - adverse effects Gastrostomy - methods Heart surgery Hospitals Humans Intestine Male Malnutrition Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged Morbidity Nutrition Ostomy Parenteral nutrition Patients Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Research and Analysis Methods Retrospective Studies Surgery Therapeutics |
| title | Post-esophagectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T23%3A57%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Post-esophagectomy%20tube%20feeding:%20a%20retrospective%20comparison%20of%20jejunostomy%20and%20a%20novel%20gastrostomy%20feeding%20approach&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Huang,%20Kenan&rft.date=2014-03-21&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e89190&rft.epage=e89190&rft.pages=e89190-e89190&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0089190&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA478754430%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1509205441&rft_id=info:pmid/24658763&rft_galeid=A478754430&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d76d3f1a11b646f4b02d3d000f8ad8d7&rfr_iscdi=true |