Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reduction of Postoperative Complication Rate with the Use of Early Oral Feeding in Gynecologic Oncologic Patients Undergoing a Major Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A randomized controlled trial was performed to assess the outcome of early oral postoperative feeding (EOF) compared with traditional oral feeding (TOF) in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing a complex laparotomy, including upper abdominal surgery.

Methods

Patients aged 18–75 years, undergoing an elective laparotomy and with a preoperative suspicion of gynecologic malignancy, were eligible. Exclusion criteria included infectious conditions, intestinal obstruction, severe malnutrition, American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥4, intestinal resection, and postoperative stay in the intensive care unit lasting >24 h. Patients allocated to EOF received liquid diet in the first postoperative day and then regular diet. Patients received traditional feeding scheme until resolution of postoperative ileus to start liquid diet. The primary end-point of the trial was length of hospital stay.

Results

Between January 1, 2007, and November 17, 2007, a total of 143 patients were randomized to receive either EOF or TOF. Hospital stay for patients who received EOF (n = 71) was 4.7 vs. 5.8 days for the TOF group (n = 72) (P = 0.006). The mean level of postoperative satisfaction was significantly higher in the EOF group (82.8 vs. 71.7 mm, P ≤ 0.001). Patients who received the TOF scheme had significantly higher overall postoperative complications (39 vs. 17% in EOF group, P = 0.003) and infective complications (14% in TOF group vs. 3% in EOF group, P = 0.017). Variables such as nausea and vomiting, analgesic and antiemetic requirement as well as level of pain and quality of life were not different between groups.

Conclusions

On the basis of these findings, the policy of EOF should be used after a complex gynecologic oncologic laparotomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. Stage III and stage IV ovarian epithelial cancer. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/ovarianepithelial/HealthProfessional/page6#Reference6.1 (accessed August 16, 2009).

  2. Morris M, Burke TW. Surgery of the gastrointestinal tract in relation to gynecology. In: Gershenson DM, DeCherney AH, Curry SL, eds. Operative gynecology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1993:390–425.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bowling TE. Does disorder of gastrointestinal motility affect food intake in the post-surgical patient? Proc Nutr Soc. 1994;53:151–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersen HK, Lewis SJ, Thomas S. Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of colorectal surgery versus later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD004080.

  5. Charoenkwan K, Phillipson G, Vutyavanich T. Early versus delayed (traditional) oral fluids and food for reducing complications after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD004508.

  6. Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, Thomas S. Early enteral feeding versus “nil by mouth” after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ. 2001;323:773–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kehlet H, Williamson R, Büchler MW, Beart RW. A survey of perceptions and attitudes among European surgeons towards the clinical impact and management of postoperative ileus. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:245–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lassen K, Dejong CHC, Ljungqvist O, et al. Nutritional support and oral intake after gastric resection in five northern European countries. Dig Surg. 2005;22:346–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lassen K, Hannemann P, Ljungqvist O, et al. Patterns in current perioperative practice: survey of colorectal surgeons in five northern European countries. BMJ. 2005;330:1420–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steed HL, Capstick V, Flood C, et al. A randomized controlled trial of early versus “traditional” postoperative oral intake after major abdominal gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:861–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pearl ML, Valea FA, Fischer M, Mahler L, Chalas E. A randomized controlled trial of early postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:94–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schilder JM, Hurteau JA, Look KY, et al. A prospective controlled trial of early postoperative oral intake following major abdominal gynecologic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 1997;67:235–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lochs H, Allison SP, Meier R, et al. Introductory to the ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition: terminology, definitions and general topics. Clin Nutr. 2006;25:180–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Detsky AS, McLaughlin JR, Baker JP, et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987;11:8–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1972;2:1127–31.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cull A, Howat S, Waldenstrom E, et al. Development of a European organisation for research and treatment of cancer questionnaire module to assess the quality of life of ovarian cancer patients in clinical trials: a progress report. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:47–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Greimel E, Bottomley A, Cull A, et al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1402–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinson PN, Salmon P, Yentis SM. Maternal satisfaction. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1998;7:32–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cutillo G, Maneschi F, Franchi M, et al. Early feeding compared with nasogastric decompression after major oncologic gynaecologic surgery: a randomized study. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:41–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoskins WJ. Surgical staging and cytoreductive surgery of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1993;71(4 Suppl):1534–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stewart Massad L, Vogler G, Herzog T, Mutch D. Correlates of length of stay in gynecologic oncologic patients undergoing inpatient surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:214–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Soriano D, Dulitzki M, Keidar N, et al. Early oral feeding after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:1006–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Reissman P, Teoh T-A, Cohen SM, et al. Is early oral feeding safe after elective colorectal surgery? Ann Surg. 1995;222:73–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care. A literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6:185–210.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Teoh W, Shah M, Mah C. A randomised controlled trial on beneficial effects of early feeding post-caesarean delivery under regional anaesthesia. Singapore Med J. 2007;48:152–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Swart M, Sewell J, Thomas D. Intrathecal morphine for Caesarea section: an assessment of pain relief, satisfaction and side effects. Anaesthesia. 1997;52:373–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Murphy JD, Henderson K, Bowden MI, Lewis M, Cooper GM. Bupivacaine versus bupivacaine and fentanyl for epidural analgesia: effect on maternal satisfaction. BMJ. 1991;302:564–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Izbizky GH, Minig L, Sebastiani MA, Otaño L. The effect of early versus delayed postcaesarean feeding on women’s satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2008;115:332–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Burrows WR, Gingo AJ, Rose SM, et al. Safety and efficacy of early postoperative solid food consumption after caesarean section. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:463–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Han-Geurts IJM, Hop WC, Kok NF, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the impact of early enteral feeding on postoperative ileus and recovery. Br J Surg. 2007;94:555–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Collins T, Daley J, Henderson W, Khuri S. Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after major elective surgery. Ann Surg. 1999;230:251–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dean M, Finan M, Kline R. Predictors of complications and hospital stay in gynecologic cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:721–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Smedley F, Bowling T, James M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of preoperative and postoperative oral nutritional supplements on clinical course and cost of care. Clin Nutr. 2002;21(Suppl 1):39.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Beier-Holgersen R, Boesby S. Influence of postoperative enteral nutrition on postsurgical infections. Gut. 1996;39:833–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sagar S, Harland P, Shields R. Early postoperative feeding with elemental diet. BMJ. 1979;1:293–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rana SK, Bray J, Menzies-Gow N, et al. Short term benefits of postoperative oral dietary supplements in surgical patients. Clin Nutr. 1992;11:337–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Carr C, Eddie Ling KD, Boulos P, Singer M. Randomised trial of safety and efficacy of immediate postoperative enteral feeding in patients undergoing gastrointestinal resection. BMJ. 1996;312:869–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Watters JM, Kirkpatrick SM, Norris SB, Shamji FM, Wells GA. Immediate postoperative enteral feeding results in impaired respiratory mechanics and decreased mobility. Ann Surg. 1997;226:369–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Moss G, Regal ME, Lichtig L. Reducing postoperative pain, narcotics, and length of hospitalization. Surgery. 1986:99:206–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schroeder D, Gillanders L, Mahr K, Hill GL. Effects of immediate postoperative enteral nutrition on body composition, muscle function and wound healing. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1991;15:376–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Windsor JA, Knight GS, Hill GL. Wound healing response in surgical patients: recent food intake is more important than nutritional status. Br J Surg. 1988;75:135–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Deitch EA, Andrassy RJ, Booth FVM, Moore FA. Current concepts in postoperative feeding. Contemp Surg. 1991;39:37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Khelet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:606–17.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Balzan S, Almeida Quadros C, et al. Bacterial translocation: overview of mechanisms and clinical impact. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:464–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, et al. Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduce postoperative septic complications. The results of a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 1992;216:172–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Deitch EA, Winterton J, Berg R. The gut as a portal of entry for bacteria. Ann Surg. 1987;205:681–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank the patients who participated in this trial, as well as the following individuals who participated in various phases of the trial: Gabriela Parma, MD, Dorella Franchi, MD, Maria Teresa Lapresa, MD (Gynecologic Department, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy), who actively participated in the care of protocol patients during recovery and who explicitly followed the protocol guidelines of this trial; Anna Rita Sabbatini (Dietetic and Clinical Nutrition, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy) for her helpful advice and for providing the postoperative feeding schemes for each branch of treatment; and the data manager group from the Gynecologic Department, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy: Sara Boveri, Mariella Siano, Maira Boggiogero, Amalia Di Dia, and Laura Mella for their careful work. In addition, we thank Herbert Kotz, MD, and Edward Trimble, MD (National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD) for offering important and constructive comments on the manuscript, and Nadia Caroppo, MD (Gynecologic Department, European Institute of Oncology), and Mary Ryan, MLS (National Institutes of Health Library, Bethesda, MD), for editing the manuscript. Finally, we recognize the efforts made by the nursing staff of the Gynecologic Department, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, for their active participation in the execution of this study: Emanuela D’anna, Alessandra Saraca, Daniela D’Aronzo, Silvia Borini, Eliana Misurelli, Chiara Foroni, Brigitta Mori, V. Chamizo Fernandez, Paola Biffi, Hanna Gruchala, Michela Cerone, Lara Buscarini, Alessandra Marras, and Liberata Anedda.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Minig MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Minig, L., Biffi, R., Zanagnolo, V. et al. Reduction of Postoperative Complication Rate with the Use of Early Oral Feeding in Gynecologic Oncologic Patients Undergoing a Major Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg Oncol 16, 3101–3110 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0681-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0681-4

Keywords

Navigation