A prospective, randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. The economic impact of early enteral feeding in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective survey of 51 consecutive patients. Is early postoperative feeding feasible in elective colon and rectal surgery? Early postoperative feeding after elective colorectal surgery is not a benefit unique to laparoscopy-assisted procedures. A randomized controlled trial of early postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. Early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding improve patients' rehabilitation after colorectostomy. Is early oral feeding safe after elective colorectal surgery? A prospective randomized trial. Early feeding after elective open colorectal resections: a prospective randomized trial. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of preoperative and postoperative oral nutritional supplements on clinical course and cost of care.
The purpose of the study was to determine whether early postoperative enteral feeding with an immune-enhancing formula (IEF) decreases morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.
                Early enteral feeding with an IEF has been associated with improved outcome in trauma and critical care patients. Evaluable data documenting reduced complications after major upper GI surgery for malignancy with early enteral feeding are limited.
                Between March 1994 and August 1996, 195 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of esophageal (n = 23), gastric (n = 75), peripancreatic (n = 86), or bile duct (n = 11) cancer underwent resection and were randomized to IEF via jejunostomy tube or control (CNTL). Tube feedings were supplemented with arginine, RNA, and omega-3 fatty acids, begun on postoperative 1, and advanced to a goal of 25 kcal/kg per day. The CNTL involved intravenous crystalloid solutions. Statistical analysis was by t test, chi square, or logistic regression.
                Patient demographics, nutritional status, and operative factors were similar between the groups. Caloric intake was 61% and 22% of goal for the IEF and CNTL groups, respectively. The IEF group received significantly more protein, carbohydrate, lipids and immune-enhancing nutrients than did the CNTL group. There were no significant differences in the number of minor, major, or infectious wound complications between the groups. There was one bowel necrosis associated with IEF requiring reoperation. Hospital mortality was 2.5% and median length of hospital stay was 11 days, which was not different between the groups.
                Early enteral feeding with an IEF was not beneficial and should not be used in a routine fashion after surgery for upper GI malignancies. 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. In reports on earlier non-prospectively randomized trials the authors have claimed that early oral postoperative feeding is a unique benefit of laparoscopic surgery. On the other hand, some authors have suggested that early feeding could be tolerated by the majority of patients after elective open surgery.
                This prospective randomized study was undertaken to assess the feasibility and safety of immediate oral feeding in patients subjected to elective open colorectal surgery.
                This trial included 190 patients who underwent an elective colon or rectal operation. Patients were randomized after the operative procedure into one of two groups. Group I (n = 95): On the first evening after the operation, patients were allowed ab libitum intake of clear liquids; this continued until the first postoperative day at which time they progressed to a regular diet as desired. Group II (n = 95): In this group the nasogastric tube was removed when the surgeon considered that postoperative ileus had been resolved.
                Early oral intake was tolerated by 79.6% of the patients in the first 4 days in group I; there were no differences between the two groups from the 4th day on. The incidence of vomiting and nasogastric tube insertion (21.5%) was higher in patients in group I than in those in group II. The time until the first bowel movement was 4.3 days in group I and 4.7 days in group II. Complications appeared in 17.3% of the patients in group I and in 19.3% in group II.
                This study has objectively demonstrated that early oral feeding is feasible and safe in patients who have elective colorectal surgery. Previous analyses of non-prospectively randomized trials have suggested that early oral postoperative feeding might be a benefit unique to laparoscopic surgery. However, some authors have indicated that early feeding can be tolerated by the majority of patients after elective open surgery.
                This prospective randomized study was undertaken to assess whether the time prior to oral intake of food after laparoscopy-assisted surgery is shorter than that after standard laparotomy.
                This trial included 40 patients who were divided randomly into two groups before operation. Group I included 20 patients (mean age, 52 years; range, 15-77 years) who underwent a laparoscopy-assisted colon or rectal procedure (LAP). Group II consisted of 20 patients (mean age, 56 years, range, 41-74 years) who underwent surgery with a standard midline incision (SMI). On the evening after surgery, patients were allowed clear liquids ab libitum. This regimen was continued until the first postoperative day at which time they could elect to start eating a regular diet. If a patient had two episodes of vomiting, a nasogastric tube was inserted.
                Five laparoscopic procedures were converted to SMI because of adhesions (25%) and an equal number of patients was excluded from the group that was treated in the traditional manner. Therefore, only 30 patients were included in the analysis. There were no deaths in this trial. Complications appeared in four of the patients in the LAP group and in two of the patients in the SMI group (no significant difference). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the ability to tolerate the early oral intake of food, in the frequency of vomiting or in the incidence of insertion of a nasogastric tube. The time to the first bowel movement was 5.4 days in LAP and 5.5 days in SMI, and the difference was not significant.
                This study invalidates the claim by laparoscopic surgeons that earlier oral intake of food is tolerated by their patients than by patients who undergo standard procedures. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of early oral feeding after intra-abdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients.
                During a 1-year period, 200 gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of early compared with traditional oral postoperative feeding. Patients allocated to early postoperative oral feeding began a clear liquid diet on the first postoperative day and then advanced to a regular diet as tolerated. Patients allocated to traditional postoperative oral feeding received nothing by mouth until return of bowel function (defined as the passage of flatus in the absence of vomiting or abdominal distention), then began a clear liquid diet, and advanced to a regular diet as tolerated.
                Age, case distribution, surgery length, blood loss, and first passage of flatus were similar in the early and traditional feeding groups. Significantly more patients in the early group developed nausea. Despite this, the incidence of vomiting, abdominal distention, incidence and duration of nasogastric tube use, and percentage of patients who tolerated clear liquid and regular diets on the first attempt were comparable in both groups. Time to development of bowel sounds, time to initiation of clear liquid and regular diets, and hospital stay were significantly longer in the traditional group. Major complications (eg, pneumonia, atelectasis, and wound complications) and febrile morbidity occurred equally in both groups. There were no known anastamotic complications or aspirations in either group. Postoperative changes in hematologic indices and electrolytes were comparable in both groups.
                Early postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery is safe and well tolerated. To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding in the patients undergoing surgery for colorectal carcinoma.
                Three hundred and sixteen patients submitted to operations associated with colorectostomy from January 2004 to September 2005 were randomized to two groups: In experimental group (n=161), the nasogastric tube was removed after the operation from 12 to 24 h and was promised immediately oral feeding; In control group (n=155), the nasogastric tube was maintained until the passage of flatus per rectum. Variables assessed included the time to first passage of flatus, the time to first passage of stool, the time elapsed postoperative stay, and postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage, acute dilation of stomach, wound infection and dehiscense, fever, pulmonary infection and pharyngolaryngitis.
                The median and average days to the first passage of flatus (3.0+/-0.9 vs 3.6+/-1.2, P<0.001), the first passage of stool (4.1+/-1.1 vs 4.8+/-1.4, P<0.001) and the length of postoperative stay (8.4+/-3.4 vs 9.6+/-5.0, P<0.05) were shorter in the experimental group than in the control group. The postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage (1.24% vs 2.58%), acute dilation of stomach (1.86% vs 0.06%) and wound complications (2.48% vs 1.94%) were similar in the groups, but fever (3.73% vs 9.68%, P<0.05), pulmonary infection (0.62% vs 4.52%, P<0.05) and pharyngolaryngitis (3.11% vs 23.23%, P<0.001) were much more in the control group than in the experimental group.
                The present study shows that application of gastrointestinal decompression after colorectostomy can not effectively reduce postoperative complications. On the contrary, it may increase the incidence rate of fever, pharyngolaryngitis and pulmonary infection. These strategies of early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding in the patients undergoing colorectostomy are feasible and safe and associated with reduced postoperative discomfort and can accelerate the return of bowel function and improve rehabilitation. The routine use of a nasogastric tube after elective colorectal surgery is no longer mandatory. More recently, early feeding after laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to be safe and well tolerated. Therefore, the aim of our study was to prospectively assess the safety and tolerability of early oral feeding after elective "open" abdominal colorectal operations.
                All patients who underwent elective laparotomy with either colon or small bowel resection between November 1992 and April 1994 were prospectively randomized to one of the following two groups: group 1: early oral feeding--all patients received a clear liquid diet on the first postoperative day followed by a regular diet as tolerated; group 2: regular feeding--all patients were treated in the "traditional" way, with feeding only after the resolution of their postoperative ileus. The nasogastric tube was removed from all patients in both groups immediately after surgery. The patients were monitored for vomiting, bowel movements, nasogastric tube reinsertion, time of regular diet consumption, complications, and length of hospitalization. The nasogastric tube was reinserted if two or more episodes of vomiting of more than 100 mL occurred in the absence of bowel movement. Ileus was considered resolved after a bowel movement in the absence of abdominal distention or vomiting.
                One hundred sixty-one consecutive patients were studied, 80 patients in group 1 (34 males and 46 females, mean age 51 years [range 16-82 years]), and 81 patients in group 2 (43 males and 38 females, mean age 56 years [range 20-90 years]). Sixty-three patients (79%) in the early feeding group tolerated the early feeding schedule and were advanced to regular diet within the next 24 to 48 hours. There were no significant differences between the early and regular feeding groups in the rate of vomiting (21% vs. 14%), nasogastric tube reinsertion (11% vs. 10%), length of ileus (3.8 +/- 0.1 days vs. 4.1 +/- 0.1 days), length of hospitalization (6.2 +/- 0.2 days vs. 6.8 +/- 0.2 days), or overall complications (7.5% vs. 6.1%), respectively, (p = NS for all). However, the patients in the early feeding group tolerated a regular diet significantly earlier than did the patients in the regular feeding group (2.6 +/- 0.1 days vs. 5 +/- 0.1 days; p < 0.001).
                Early oral feeding after elective colorectal surgery is safe and can be tolerated by the majority of patients. Thus, it may become a routine feature of postoperative management in these patients. A period of starvation after colorectal resections to allow for resolution of the clinical evidence of ileus has been an unchallenged surgical doctrine until recent times. A prospective randomized trial comparing early feeding to traditional management in patients undergoing open elective colorectal resections is reported.
                Patients undergoing elective intraperitoneal colorectal resections without stoma formation were randomized to either an early feeding or control group. The early feeding group were allowed free fluids from 4 h postoperatively progressing to a solid diet from the first postoperative day as they tolerated it. The control group remained nil orally until passage of flatus or bowel motion and were then commenced on fluids progressing to solids over 24-48 h.
                There were 40 patients in each group well matched for age, sex, type and duration of operation, method of analgesia and mobilization. Thirty-two patients (80%) in the early feeding group tolerated a diet within 48 h. There was no significant difference in the rate of vomiting, nasogastric reinsertion or complications. The early feeding group tolerated a diet, passed flatus, used their bowels, and were discharged from hospital significantly earlier than the control group.
                Early feeding after elective open colorectal resections is successfully tolerated by the majority of patients, leading to earlier resolution of ileus and hospital discharge. Postoperative oral nutritional supplementation has been shown to be of clinical benefit. This study examined the clinical effects and cost of administration of oral supplements both before and after surgery.
                This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in three centres. Patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal tract surgery were randomized to one of four groups: group CC received no nutritional supplements, group SS took supplements both before and after surgery, group CS received postoperative supplements only, and group SC were given supplements only before surgery. Preoperative supplements were given from the time it was decided to operate to 1 day before surgery. Postoperative supplements were started when the patient was able to take free fluids and continued for 4 weeks after discharge from hospital. Data collected included weight change, complications, length of stay, nutritional intake, anthropometrics, quality of life and detailed costings covering all aspects of care.
                Some 179 patients were randomized, of whom 27 were withdrawn and 152 analysed (CC 44, SS 32, CS 35, SC 41). Dietary intake was similar in all four groups throughout the study. Mean energy intake from preoperative supplements was 536 and 542 kcal/day in the SS and SC groups respectively; that 2 weeks after discharge from hospital was 274 and 361 kcal/day in the SS and CS groups respectively. There was significantly less postoperative weight loss in the SS group than in the CC and CS groups (P < 0.050), and significantly fewer minor complications in the SS and CS groups than the CC group (P < 0.050). There were no differences in the rate of major complications, anthropometrics and quality of life. Mean overall costs were greatest in the CC group, although differences between groups were not significant.
                Perioperative oral nutritional supplementation started before hospital admission for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery significantly diminished the degree of weight loss and incidence of minor complications, and was cost-effective.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.
Although non-significant results, there is no obvious advantage in keeping patients 'nil by mouth' following gastrointestinal surgery, and this review support the notion on early commencement of enteral feeding.