To evaluate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of enteral nutrition (EN) via jejunostomy in the early postoperative period in patients with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing pancreatitis (AHNP), 38 patients were divided into the early group (start EN 3 or 4 days after operation) and the later group (start EN 7 days after operation). All patients received parenteral nutrition at first, then were transited to EN. The enteral nutrition liquid was transfused by continuous drip via jejunostomy in both groups. Levels of serum amylase, blood glucose, as well as the liver function were used as indices of tolerance. Symptoms and physical signs of abdominal pain as well as the level of serum albumin were used as the indices of effectieness. Patients tolerated the therapy well in both groups. Moreover, they enjoyed an earlier correction of hypoalbuminemia with more quickly improved serum albumin and no abdominal pain. Starting enteral nutrition in the early postoperative period is feasible, safe and efficacious for acute hemorrhagic necrotizing pancreatitis patients. It plays an important role in treating AHNP and improving curing rate.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal tube for enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and CBM databases were searched to collect the clinical effects of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal nutrition tube after radical resection of esophageal cancer from inception to October 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsTwenty-six articles were included, including 17 randomized controlled studies and 9 cohort studies, with a total of 35 808 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that: in the jejunostomy tube group, the postoperative exhaust time (MD=–4.27, 95%CI –5.87 to –2.66, P=0.001), the incidence of pulmonary infection (OR=1.39, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.82, P=0.02), incidence of tube removal (OR=0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.30, P=0.001), incidence of tube blockage (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, P=0.04), incidence of nasopharyngeal discomfort (OR=0.04, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.13, P=0.001), the incidence of nasopharyngeal mucosal damage (OR=0.13, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.42, P=0.008), the incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.47, P=0.003) were significantly shorter or lower than those of the nasojejunal tube group. The postoperative serum albumin level (MD=5.75, 95%CI 5.34 to 6.16, P=0.001) was significantly better than that of the nasojejunal tube group. However, the intraoperative operation time of the jejunostomy tube group (MD=13.65, 95%CI 2.32 to 24.98, P=0.02) and the indent time of the postoperative nutrition tube (MD=17.81, 95%CI 12.71 to 22.91, P=0.001) were longer than those of the nasojejunal nutrition tube. At the same time, the incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction (OR=6.08, 95%CI 2.55 to 14.50, P=0.001) was significantly higher than that of the nasojejunal tube group. There were no statistical differences in the length of postoperative hospital stay or the occurrence of anastomotic fistula between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionIn the process of enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer, jejunostomy tube has better clinical treatment effect and is more comfortable during catheterization, but the incidence of intestinal obstruction is higher than that of traditional nasojejunal tube.