Published online Jul 27, 2021. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i7.717
Peer-review started: March 29, 2021
First decision: May 28, 2021
Revised: June 4, 2021
Accepted: June 22, 2021
Article in press: June 22, 2021
Published online: July 27, 2021
Processing time: 116 Days and 0.3 Hours
Early oral feeding (EOF) has emerged as a safe and effective postoperative strategy for improving clinical outcomes in patients with lower gastrointestinal tumor. However, controversies exist with regard to EOF practice in postoperative patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor.
The purpose of this systematic and meta-analysis was to evaluate the role and importance of EOF in postoperative patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor.
By comparing the safety and efficacy of EOF and TOF, it provided a valuable evidence and safe choice for early rehabilitation of patients in the future.
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched up to December 2020 for all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EOF and traditional oral feeding (TOF) of postoperative patients with upper gastrointestinal tumors. Fifteen RCTs, with a total of 2100 participants, were analyzed in this study, of whom 1042 underwent EOF and 1058 TOF protocols.
In the meta-analysis of postoperative pneumonia and anastomotic leak, there was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%); therefore, a fixed-effect model was applied. A significantly lower risk of pneumonia was presented (RR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.44–0.89, P = 0.01). In the meta-analysis of postoperative exhaust time, there was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 87%). But, after eliminating the studies that did not directly provide mean ± SD and those with high risk bias, the remaining data after combined analysis showed no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 31%), and the results suggested that the EOF group could significantly shorten the exhaust time (WMD = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.80-0.63; P < 0.01). No significant heterogeneity was present in CD4 cell count and CD4/CD8 cell ratio results on POD7: CD4 count (I2 = 48%,), CD4/CD8 (I2 = 33%); accordingly, a fixed-effect model was applied. On POD7, CD4 count and CD4/CD8 in the EOF group were significantly higher than those in the TOF group: CD4 count (WMD = 7.17, 95%CI: 6.48–7.85; P < 0.01), CD4/CD8 ratio (WMD = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.23–0.35; P < 0.01).
Our unit has been committed to early postoperative rehabilitation for more than 10 years. According to our experience, this meta-analysis is consistent with the clinical situation; therefore, we suggest that EOF can be used for patients with upper gastrointestinal tumors after surgery.
Early recovery after surgery has always been an important point for patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The present updated meta-analysis and systematic review demonstrate that application of EOF after esophageal and gastric cancer surgery is safe and effective. We consider that choosing appropriate patients and precise surgical operations will help the implementation of EOF. Additionally, we should conduct further high-quality, large-sample and multicenter RCTs with long-term follow-up.