ArticleThoracic cancer2015
Alternative method for jejunostomy in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of modified thoraco-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis versus traditional thoraco-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis for esophageal cancer: Propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomy by using a double semipurse string suture method in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo supplement nutrition, jejunostomy has been widely adopted as an adjunct surgical procedure for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Most Chinese surgeons have a preference for parenteral nutrition even though it has some disadvantages compared with jejunostomy. In this report, we describe a new approach that allows the quick insertion of a feeding tube in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. We retrospectively analyze cases that have applied this approach and compare the advantages and disadvantages of jejunostomy.
methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2012, 131 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our hospital. These patients were divided into three groups: the total parenteral nutrition (PN) group, the jejunostomy (JT) group and the feeding tube (FT) group. The effect and safety of the procedure were compared.
resultsIt took approximately 20 minutes longer to perform jejunostomy compared to placing a feeding tube (P < 0.05). The nutrition cost of the JT group was higher than the FT group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the FT and JT groups (P > 0.05) in the ratio of body weight loss seven days post-surgery. The anal exsufflation time of the FT group was similar to the JT group (P > 0.05). The incidence of intestinal adhesion and obstruction in the JT group was 26.3%, which is much higher than in the FT and PN groups (P < 0.05).
conclusionPlacing the feeding tube after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy can decrease operative damage and bring sufficient nutrition. We believe it can be an alternative to jejunostomy in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.