ObjectiveTo compare the impact of early enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) on the postoperative efficacy of esophageal cancer through meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trial (RCT).MethodsPubMed, Medline, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP, China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) were searched by computer from inception to April 2018 to identify potential RCT which assessed clinical efficacy between EN and PN for postoperative patients with esophageal cancer. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers independently screened and evaluated literature. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 30 RCT studies were selected, including 3 969 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that: there was a significant difference between EN and PN in postoperative anastomotic fistulas (I2=0%, OR=0.67, 95%CI 0.45-0.99, P=0.04), postoperative pulmonary infections (I2=0%, OR=0.42, 95%CI 0.32-0.55, P<0.000 1), postoperative albumin levels (I2=38%, MD=0.78, 95%CI 0.51-1.06, P<0.000 01),time of first anal exhaust after operation (I2=0%, MD=–23.16, 95%CI –25.16-21.16, P<0.000 01) and postoperative incision infection (I2=0%, RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.21-0.64, P=0.000 5).ConclusionCompared with PN, early EN can significantly reduce the incidence of major postoperative complications and shorten the time of first anal exhaust after surgery. In addition, EN is superior to PN in improving nutritional status, increasing weight and reducing costs and side effects.
