Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Feasibility of enhanced recovery after surgery in gastric surgery: a retrospective study

  • Takanobu Yamada1, 2Email author,
  • Tsutomu Hayashi1, 2,
  • Toru Aoyama1, 2,
  • Junya Shirai1, 2,
  • Hirohito Fujikawa1, 2,
  • Haruhiko Cho1,
  • Takaki Yoshikawa1,
  • Yasushi Rino2,
  • Munetaka Masuda2,
  • Hideki Taniguchi3,
  • Ryoji Fukushima4 and
  • Akira Tsuburaya1
BMC SurgeryBMC series ¿ open, inclusive and trusted201414:41

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-41

Received: 7 October 2013

Accepted: 2 July 2014

Published: 8 July 2014

Abstract

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been reported to be feasible and useful for maintaining physiological function and facilitating recovery after colorectal surgery. The feasibility of such programs in gastric surgery remains unclear. This study assessed whether an ERAS program is feasible in patients who undergo gastric surgery.

Methods

The subjects were patients who underwent gastric surgery between June 2009 and February 2011 at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center. They received perioperative care according to an ERAS program. All data were retrieved retrospectively. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative complications. The secondary end point was postoperative outcomes.

Results

A total of 203 patients were studied. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the incidence of ≥ grade 2 postoperative complications was 10.8% and that of ≥ grade 3 complications was 3.9%. Nearly all patients did not require delay of meal step-up (95.1%). Only 6 patients (3.0%) underwent reoperation. The median postoperative hospital stay was 9 days. Only 4 patients (2.0%) required readmission. There was no mortality.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that our ERAS program is feasible in patients who undergo gastric surgery.

Keywords

Enhanced recovery after surgery Gastric cancer Gastrectomy Feasibility Postoperative complications

Background

Gastric cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Complete surgical resection plays the most important role in the cure of gastric cancer; however, surgery for gastric cancer remains a high-risk procedure with clinically significant postoperative stress, complications, and sequelae. Morbidity and mortality from radical gastrectomy range from 9.1-46.0% and 0-13%, respectively [27].

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been proposed to maintain physiological function and facilitate postoperative recovery [8]. In the following studies, ERAS was considered to reduce rates of morbidity, shorten length of hospital stay [911]. ERAS programs have many elements, including preoperative education, preoperative carbohydrate loading, omission of bowel preparation, epidural analgesia without opioids, early postoperative enteral feeding, early mobilization of patients, and thrombotic prophylaxis. In colorectal surgery, several studies have reported that ERAS programs are feasible and useful [911].

We previously demonstrated that an ERAS protocol is useful in patients who undergo elective radical gastrectomy [12]. Other studies have reported that ERAS programs or fast-track surgery in gastric surgery can accelerate postoperative rehabilitation [1318]. However, the number of patients assessed in these studies was small. In addition, some studies found that the incidence of some postoperative complications, especially nausea, vomiting, and postoperative ileus, tended to be higher in the ERAS group than in the conventional group, suggesting that ERAS programs might increase the risk of some complications after gastric surgery. Because of these controversial results, it is necessary to confirm the feasibility of ERAS programs in gastric surgery.

The present study evaluated whether an ERAS program was feasible in more than 200 patients who underwent gastric surgery. Emphasis was placed on postoperative gastrointestinal complications.

Methods

Patients

Between June 2009 and February 2011, a total of 256 patients with gastric cancer underwent surgery at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center. The inclusion criteria for this study were (1) a histologically confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of stomach and (2) the receipt of elective distal gastrectomy or total gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy. We excluded patients who preoperatively received any chemotherapy or radiotherapy. We also excluded patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy because these procedures are not standard in Japan and are mainly used in patients enrolled in clinical trials. These surgeries themselves have not been confirmed safe and feasible yet.

All patients received perioperative care according to our ERAS program. Operations were performed by the same team of surgeons (three specialists and four trainees). In principle, patients with a preoperative diagnosis of stage I disease received laparoscopic surgery with D1+ dissection, and the others received open surgery with D2 dissection [19].

ERAS program

In their Cochrane review, Spanjersberg et al. regard ERAS protocols as programs that include 7 or more of 17 ERAS items [10]. Our ERAS program included 13 items.

Preoperative

Preoperative counseling was held in the outpatient clinic before hospitalization and in the ward after admission. Patients could eat a normal diet until dinner of the day before surgery. Magnesium oxide and a New Lecicarbon® suppository (Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) were administered on the day before surgery (Table 1).
Table 1

Time table of the modified ERAS program

Operative day

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

+6

+7

Preoperative counseling

Preoperative counseling was held in the outpatient clinic before hospitalization and in the ward after admission.

Pre-medication

Patients do not receive any sedation.

   

Oral intake

Normal diet until midnight

Oral hydration solution (OS-1®) 3 h before surgery

 

Drink a water and oral nutrition supplement (Endure Liquid®)

Liquid diet (3 steps up to a soft diet every 2 days)

Bowel preparation

1 g magnesium oxide and a New Lecicarbon® suppository

        

Anesthesia and Analgesics

 

Combination of epidural analgesia (TH7-11) and general anesthesia during surgery

       
 

Continuous thoracic epidural infusion of analgesics after surgery

Removing epidural catheter

     
 

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug intravenously after surgery twice daily

Acetoaminophen three times a daily orally

  

Drain and NGT

 

No drain in distal gastrectomy, one or two drains in total gastrectomy

 

Removing drain(s)

     

NGT was removed immediately after surgery

Urinary catheter

   

Removing

     

ADL

  

Encourage to sit out of bed for more than 6 h

Encourage to walk the length of the ward

Antithromboprophylaxis

  

None

Subcutaneous injection of antithrombotic agent (enoxaparin sodium or fondaparinux)

None

X-ray and blood exam.

 

     

(Check discharge creiteria)

NGT: Nasogastric tube, ADL: Activity of daily life.

Perioperative

Patients, excluding those who had gastric obstruction with decreased output, could drink two 500-ml plastic bottles of OS-1® (2.5% carbohydrate, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Tokushima, Japan) 3 h before surgery. Premedication was not administered. Anesthesia consisted of a combination of epidural analgesia (Th 7-11) and general anesthesia. In principle, no drain was used in distal gastrectomy, and one or two drains were used in total gastrectomy. The nasogastric tube was removed immediately after surgery (Table 1).

Postoperative

Day of surgery: A continuous thoracic epidural infusion of analgesics was given for 2 days after surgery. To prevent postoperative pain, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (50 mg flurbiprofen axetil) was administered intravenously twice daily after surgery until the resumption of oral intake. Postoperative day (POD) 1: Patients were encouraged to sit out of bed for more than 6 h. POD 2: Oral intake was started with water and a can of oral nutrition supplement (250 ml Ensure Liquid ®, Abbott Japan Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). After the resumption of oral intake, 300 mg of acetaminophen was administered orally three times daily. The patients were encouraged to walk the length of the ward. An antithrombotic agent (enoxaparin sodium 2 000 IU twice daily or fondaparinux 2.5 mg daily) was injected for 2 days 6 h after removal of the epidural catheter. POD 3: The patients started to eat soft food and were stepped up to regular food every 2 days (3 steps). The criteria for discharge were as follows: adequate pain relief, soft diet intake, return to preoperative mobility level, and normal laboratory data on POD 7 (Table 1).

The ERAS program evaluated in the present study was developed by a team of surgeons and anesthesiologists working in close cooperation with a data safety monitoring committee (DSMC). The feasibility and safety audit was completed by the DSMC in September 2009, when 50 patients had been treated according to the ERAS program. Our ERAS program in practice was approved both by the institutional clinical pathway committee and the DSMC. This study, a retrospective analysis, have been performed upon the approval of the institutional review board of Kanagawa Cancer Center. Informed consent for the ERAS program and using the clinical date without identifying personal information were taken before surgery.

Data collection (end points)

All data were retrieved retrospectively from the patients’ database and clinical records. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative complications. Complications were defined as ≥ grade 2 complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification within 30 days after surgery [20]. Secondary end points were postoperative outcomes such as onset of walking, onset of oral intake, onset of flatus, onset of defecation, delay of meal step-up, reoperation, postoperative hospital stay, readmission, and mortality. We delayed meal step-up if the patient ate 40 percent or less of meals for 2 days.

Pathological findings were categorized according to the 7th edition of UICC-TNM [21]. Continuous data are expressed as medians (range).

Results

A total of 203 patients were studied.

Patients’ characteristics

There were 133 men and 70 women. Ten patients diagnosed non-adenocarcinoma or having other cancer simultaneously, sixteen patients received preoperative chemotherapy, Twenty two patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy, four patients undergoing remnant total gastrectomy, and one patient undergoing proximal gastrectomy were excluded. The median age was 67 (32-84) years. Performance status was good in most patients. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 22.2 (16.2-31.4) (Table 2).
Table 2

Clinicopathological features

  

Patients(N = 203)

Age (years old)*

 

67(32-84)

Gender

Male

133

(65.5%)

 

Female

70

(34.5%)

BMI (kg/m2)*

 

22.2(16.2-31.4)

ECOG-PS

0

177

(87.2%)

 

1

26

(12.8%)

 

2

0

(0.0%)

ASA-PS

I

99

(48.8%)

 

II

103

(50.7%)

 

III

1

(0.5%)

Procedure

Open distal gastrectomy

67

(33.0%)

 

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy

76

(37.4%)

 

Open total gastrectomy

60

(29.6%)

Lymph node dissection

D1,D1+

120

(59.1%)

 

D2

83

(40.9%)

Reconstruction

Billroth I

116

(57.1%)

 

Billroth II

4

(2.0%)

 

Roux-en Y

83

(40.9%)

Combined organ resection

yes

34

(16.7%)

 

no

169

(83.3%)

Operation time (min.)*

 

179(80-577)

Bleeding (ml)*

 

110(0-1620)

T categories

T1

121

(59.6%)

 

T2

27

(13.3%)

 

T3

19

(9.4%)

 

T4

36

(17.7%)

N categories

N0

131

(64.5%)

 

N1

22

(10.8%)

 

N2

19

(9.4%)

 

N3

31

(15.3%)

Stage (UICC TNM 7th)

I

128

(63.1%)

 

II

35

(17.2%)

 

III

31

(15.3%)

 

IV

9

(4.4%)

BMI; Body mass index, ECOG-PS; Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status, ASA-PS; American society of anesthesiologists physical status, *median(range).

Surgical procedures

Laparoscopic surgery was performed in 76 patients (37.4%), and total gastrectomy in 60 patients (29.6%). 83 patients (40.9%) underwent D2 lymph node dissection. Combined organ resection was performed in 34 patients, among whom 29 (85.3%) additionally underwent splenectomy (including pancreatico-splenectomy in 1 patient). Billroth I reconstruction was performed in 116 (57.1%) patients, and Roux-en-Y reconstruction was done in 83 (40.9%). The median operation time was 179 (80-577) minutes. The estimated median blood loss was 110 (0-1620) ml (Table 2).

Pathological characteristics

Early gastric cancer (T1) was confirmed in 121 patients (59.6%). 131 patients (64.5%) had no evidence of lymph node metastasis. Final disease stage was stage I in 128 patients (63.1%), stage II in 35 (17.2%), stage III in 31 (15.3%), and stage IV in 9 (4.4%) (Table 2).

Complications and postoperative course

Grade 2 or higher complications developed in 23 (11.3%) patients, and grade 3 or higher complications developed in 8 (3.9%). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 3 patients (1.5%), ileus in 2 patients (1.0%), and anastomotic stenosis in 2 patients (1.0%). The incidence of ≥ grade 2 complications in patients who underwent open distal gastrectmy, laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy, or open total gastrectomy were 1.9%, 3.4%, or 5.4% respectively (p = 0.069). The incidence of ≥ grade 2 complications in patients who underwent D1 or D1+ dissection was 5.8%, as compared with 18.1% in patients who underwent D2 dissection (p = 0.010). The median onsets of oral intake, flatus, and defecation were POD 2 (1-5), 2 (0-5), and 4 (2-9), respectively. The step-up schedule for meals was delayed in 10 (4.9%) patients. Five of these patients (2.4%) had inadequate oral caloric or fluid intake because of nausea or vomiting. Reoperation was performed in 6 (3.0%) patients. The reasons for reoperation were leakage of the duodenal stump in 2 patients, leakage of the gastroduodenal anastomosis in 1, bowel obstruction in 1, anastomotic stenosis in 1, and pyothorax in 1. The median postoperative hospital stay was 9 (7-53) days. 4 (2.0%) patients were readmitted within 30 days after surgery. The reasons for readmission were ascites, fever, poor oral intake, and surgical site infection in 1 patient each. There was no mortality. No patient had postoperative pneumonia or required replacement of a nasogastric tube, with exception of 3 patients who had postoperative ileus (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3

Complications

 

Clavien-Dindo classification

 

≥grade 2 n (%)

≥grade 3 n (%)

Pancreas fistula

7(3.4%)

2(1.0%)

Anastomotic leakage

3(1.5%)

3(1.5%)

Ileus

2(1.0%)

0(0%)

Anastomotic stenosis

2(1.0%)

1(0.5%)

Surgical site infection

2(1.0%)

0(0%)

Obstruction

1(0.5%)

1(0.5%)

Pyothorax

1(0.5%)

1(0.5%)

Bleeding

1(0.5%)

0(0%)

Pleural effusion

1(0.5%)

0(0%)

Cholangitis

1(0.5%)

0(0%)

Ascites

1(0.5%)

0(0%)

Toxicoderma

1(0.5%)

0(0%)

Total

23(11.3%)

8(3.9%)

Table 4

Postoperative outcomes

Onset of walk (POD*)

2(1-4)

Onset of oral intake (POD*)

2(1-5)

Onset of flatus (POD*)

2(0-5)

Onset of defecation (POD*)

4(2-9)

Delay of meal step up (n(%))

10(4.9%)

Complication CD ≥ grade2 (n(%))

23(11.3%)

Reoperation (n(%))

6(3.0%)

Postoperative hospital stay(days)*

9(7-53)

Readmission (n(%))

4(2.0%)

Mortality (n(%))

0(0%)

POD; Post operative day, CD; Clavien-Dindo classification, *median (range).

Discussion

This is the first large study to evaluate the feasibility of a comprehensive ERAS program in gastric surgery. In our study, the overall incidence of morbidity (i.e., ≥grade 2 complications) was 10.8%, and the incidence of clinically significant events (≥grade 3 complications) was only 3.9%. These results obtained with our ERAS program are good as compared with complication rates of conventional perioperative care group in our previous report (12.0%) as well as other reported complication rates without ERAS program (10.5-46.0%) [27, 12]. Although T1 tumors and D1 dissection were dominant in our study, the morbidity rate in the D2 group (18.1%) was comparable to that in a large randomized controlled trial performed in Japan (JOCG9501 study, 20.9%) [5].

Among the many elements of ERAS programs, one of the utmost concerns for surgeons is that early postoperative feeding can induce postoperative ileus or anastomosis leakage. Because of these concerns, oral intake of food was previously not allowed for several days after gastrectomy in Japan [22]. In some European countries, food is also withheld for several postoperative days [23], but this practice is not supported by adequate evidence. In fact, in our study the incidences of postoperative ileus and anastomotic leakage were very low (1.0% and 1.5%, respectively), as compared with previous studies (0-12.5% and 0-4.2%, respectively) [27]. The incidences of those in conventional prieoperative care of our hospital (0% and 2%, respectively) were similar with these results [12]. Furthermore, meal step-up did not have to be delayed in nearly all patients (95.1%), and this is also similar with previous reported our internal control (96.0%) [12]. Several studies have also demonstrated that early oral feeding is feasible and beneficial in gastric surgery [1318, 24, 25], but this point remains controversial. Heslin et al. reported that early enteral feeding was not beneficial after surgery for upper gastrointestinal malignancies [26]. On the other hand, Lewis et al. found in their meta-analysis that keeping patients ‘nil by mouth’ is without benefit; in contrast, early enteral feeding was suggested to reduce mortality [27]. There were six complications that need reoperation in current study. Among those, possibility of relation between the leakage of the gastroduodenal anastomosis and ERAS program could not be denied. But others seem to be unlikely. Our results and the findings of previous studies suggest that early oral or enteral feeding is at least feasible and does not increase the risk of postoperative ileus or anastomotic leakage.

Our study had several limitations. 1) It was conducted retrospectively in a single hospital, and the analyses and endpoints were not preplanned. 2) Most patients had good performance status. Patients with poor performance status (e.g. Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status ≥3, severe dementia, and swallowing difficulty) could not be treated in our hospital, because we specialize in cancer treatment. These could be selection bias. 3) More than half of the patients had T1 disease and underwent limited lymph node dissection (D1+), whichmight account for the good results of our study. In particular, D2 or more radical lymph node dissection has been repeatedly reported to increase the risk of surgery-related complications [25]. Consistent with the previous findings, the incidence of complications was higher after D2 dissection than after D1 dissection in our study. Finally, 4) our ERAS program did not include fluid management, which is one of the key elements of ERAS programs. There was not robust evidence of perioperative fluid management in gastric surgery at the time we introduced ERAS.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our results suggest that our ERAS program is feasible in at least early-staged and relatively young patients undergoing elective gastric surgery. Further studies, for which population ERAS program can be applied and whether ERAS programs have potential benefits, are necessary.

Abbreviations

ERAS: 

Enhanced recovery after surgery

POD: 

Postoperative day

DSMC: 

Data safety monitoring committee

BMI: 

Body mass index.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid from the Kanagawa Health Fundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center
(2)
Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University
(3)
Department of Anesthesiology, Kanagawa Cancer Center
(4)
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine

References

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005, 55: 74-108.PubMedView Article
  2. Bonenkamp JJ, Songun I, Hermans J, Sasako M, Welvaart K, Plukker JT, van Elk P, Obertop H, Gouma DJ, Taat CW, Lanschot J, Meyer S, Graaf PW, Meyenfeldt MF, Tilanus H: Randomised comparison of morbidity after D1 and D2 dissection for gastric cancer in 996 Dutch patients. Lancet. 1995, 345: 745-748.PubMedView Article
  3. Cuschieri A, Fayers P, Fielding J, Craven J, Bancewicz J, Joypaul V, Cook P: Postoperative morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: preliminary results of the MRC randomised controlled surgical trial. The Surgical Cooperative Group. Lancet. 1996, 347: 995-999.PubMedView Article
  4. Degiuli M, Sasako M, Calgaro M, Garino M, Rebecchi F, Mineccia M, Scaglione D, Andreone D, Ponti A, Calvo F: Morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 gastrectomy for cancer: interim analysis of the Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group (IGCSG) randomised surgical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004, 30: 303-308.PubMedView Article
  5. Sano T, Sasako M, Yamamoto S, Nashimoto A, Kurita A, Hiratsuka M, Tsujinaka T, Kinoshita T, Arai K, Yamamura Y, Okajima K: Gastric cancer surgery: morbidity and mortality results from a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing D2 and extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy-Japan Clinical Oncology Group study 9501. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22: 2767-2773.PubMedView Article
  6. Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Cho GS, Kim MC, Han SU, Kim W, Ryu SW, Lee HJ, Song KY: Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an interim report–a phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized trial (KLASS Trial). Ann Surg. 2010, 251: 417-420.PubMedView Article
  7. Katai H, Sasako M, Fukuda H, Nakamura K, Hiki N, Saka M, Yamaue H, Yoshikawa T, Kojima K: Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with suprapancreatic nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a multicenter phase II trial (JCOG 0703). Gastric Cancer. 2010, 13: 238-244.PubMedView Article
  8. Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt MF, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Dejong CH, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group: Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg. 2009, 144: 961-969.PubMedView Article
  9. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH, Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr. 2010, 29: 434-440.PubMedView Article
  10. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ: Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011, 2: CD007635-PubMed
  11. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, McNaught CE, MacFie J, Liberman AS, Soop M, Hill A, Kennedy RH, Lobo DN, Fearon K, Ljungqvist O, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society: Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr. 2012, 31: 783-800.PubMedView Article
  12. Yamada T, Hayashi T, Cho H, Yoshikawa T, Taniguchi H, Fukushima R, Tsuburaya A: Usefulness of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol as compared with conventional perioperative care in gastric surgery. Gastric Cancer. 2012, 15: 34-41.PubMedView Article
  13. Wang D, Kong Y, Zhong B, Zhou X, Zhou Y: Fast-track surgery improves postoperative recovery in patients with gastric cancer: a randomized comparison with conventional postoperative care. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010, 14: 620-627.PubMedView Article
  14. Chen Hu J, Xin Jiang L, Cai L, Tao Zheng H, Yuan Hu S, Bing Chen H, Chang Wu G, Fei Zhang Y, Chuan LZ: Preliminary experience of fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012, 16: 1830-1839.PubMedView Article
  15. Liu XX, Jiang ZW, Wang ZM, Li JS: Multimodal optimization of surgical care shows beneficial outcome in gastrectomy surgery. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2010, 34: 313-321.View Article
  16. Grantcharov TP, Kehlet H: Laparoscopic gastric surgery in an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg. 2010, 97: 1547-1551.PubMedView Article
  17. Dorcaratto D, Grande L, Pera M: Enhanced Recovery in Gastrointestinal Surgery: Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery. Dig Surg. 2013, 30: 70-78.PubMedView Article
  18. Sakakshev BE: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointest Dig Syst. 2013, S12: 003-doi: 10.4172/2161-069X.S12-003
  19. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association: Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011, 14: 113-123.View Article
  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004, 240: 205-213.PubMedPubMed CentralView Article
  21. JSobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Witterkind CH: International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. 2009, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Black-well, 7
  22. Hirao M, Tsujinaka T, Takeno A, Fujitani K, Kurata M: Patient-controlled dietary schedule improves clinical outcome after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2005, 29: 853-857.PubMedView Article
  23. Lassen K, Dejong CH, Ljungqvist O, Fearon K, Andersen J, Hannemann P, von Meyenfeldt MF, Hausel J, Nygren J, Revhaug A: Nutritional support and oral intake after gastric resection in five northern European countries. Dig Surg. 2005, 22: 346-352.PubMedView Article
  24. Suehiro T, Matsumata T, Shikada Y, Sugimachi K: Accelerated rehabilitation with early postoperative oral feeding following gastrectomy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004, 51: 1852-1855.PubMed
  25. Jo DH, Jeong O, Sun JW, Jeong MR, Ryu SY, Park YK: Feasibility study of early oral intake after gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma. J Gastric Cancer. 2011, 11: 101-108.PubMedPubMed CentralView Article
  26. Heslin MJ, Latkany L, Leung D, Brooks AD, Hochwald SN, Pisters PW, Shike M, Brennan MF: A prospective, randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. Ann Surg. 1997, 226: 567-577.PubMedPubMed CentralView Article
  27. Lewis SJ, Andersen HK, Thomas S: Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of intestinal surgery versus later commencement of feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009, 13: 569-575.PubMedView Article
  28. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2482/14/41/prepub

Copyright

© Yamada et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement