Optimal postoperative nutrition support for patients with gastrointestinal malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Objective To improve clinical outcomes, parenteral nutrition, standard enteral nutrition and immuno-enhanced nutrition are widely used in the gastrointestinal tumor patients undergoing surgery, but the optimal management of postoperative nutrition support remains uncertain. Methods We systematically searched the PUBMED, EMBASE and CNKI to identify latent studies which the effects of standard EN compared with PN or IEN on gastrointestinal tumor patients until the end of November, 2015. The quality of included trials was assessed according to the handbook for Cochrane reviewer. Statistical analysis was carried out by RevMan5.1 software. Results 30 randomized controlled trials containing 3854 patients were contained in our meta-analysis, the results indicated that postoperative SEN could absolutely reduce the incidence of postoperative infectious (P < 0.00001) and non-infectious complications (P = 0.0003), together with its positive effect on the length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Additionally, enteral nutrition enhanced with immune stimulation was confirmed to be better, with a significant difference between groups in terms of total infectious (P < 0.00001) and non-infectious complications (P = 0.04), and IEN could also significantly shorten the length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Conclusion Early use of Enteral nutrition in digestive tumor patients after surgery could significantly reduce the postoperative complications and shorten the length of hospital stay, IEN should be the optimal management, while the use of parenteral nutrition should be restrict to few patients with severe intolerance to enteral nutrition.




Yan, X., Zhou, F. xiang, Lan, T., Xu, hui, Yang, xiao xi, Xie, C. hua, … Chen, L. lu. (2017). Optimal postoperative nutrition support for patients with gastrointestinal malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Nutrition, 36(3), 710–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.06.011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free