BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 1;12(9):e058763. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058763.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) or hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIE) are associated with better nutritional status and less weight loss 1 year after surgery, compared with open oesophagectomy (OE).
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: All patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer in Sweden during 2013-2018.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 424 patients alive at 1 year after surgery were eligible, and 281 completed the 1-year assessment. Of these, 239 had complete clinical data and were included in the analysis.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was nutritional status at 1 year after surgery, assessed using the abbreviated Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment questionnaire. The secondary outcomes included postoperative weight loss at 6 months and 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS: Of the included patients, 78 underwent MIE, 74 HMIE while 87 patients underwent OE. The MIE group had the highest prevalence of malnutrition (42% vs 22% after HMIE vs 25% after OE), reduced food intake (63% vs 45% after HMIE vs 39% after OE), symptoms reducing food intake (60% vs 45% after HMIE vs 60% after OE) and abnormal activities/function (45% vs 32% after HMIE vs 43% after OE). After adjustment for confounders, MIE was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of reduced food intake 1 year after surgery (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.47 to 5.61), compared with OE. Other outcomes were not statistically significantly different between the groups. No statistically significant associations were observed between surgical techniques and weight loss up to 1 year after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: MIE was statistically significantly associated with reduced food intake 1 year after surgery. However, no differences were observed in weight loss between the surgical techniques. Further studies on nutritional impact of surgical techniques in oesophageal cancer are needed.
PMID:36581984 | DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058763
