ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2016
A new modified technique of laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomy: a 2-year follow-up study.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthesis and Characterization of Photocurable Difunctional Monomers for Medical Applications.Polymers · 2024Article
- Effect of preoperative nutrition therapy type and duration on short-time outcomes in gastric cancer patient with gastric outlet obstruction.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2021Article
- Purely laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy: a procedure which deserves more attention.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomy by using a double semipurse string suture method in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Witzel jejunostomy.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to establish a modified technique for performing laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomy.
methodsFrom May 2011 to October 2013, laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomy was performed in 21 patients with esophageal cancer. During the procedure, jejunal inflation was performed via a percutaneous 20-gauge intravenous catheter to facilitate the subsequent puncture of the jejunal wall by the catheter needle. The success rate, procedure time, complications, and short-term outcomes were evaluated.
resultsAll laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomies were technically successful, with no perioperative mortality or conversion to a laparotomy. The operation required a mean time of 51.4±14.2 (range 27-80) minutes, and operative bleeding range was 5-20 mL. There was one reoperation required for one patient on postoperative day 5, because the feeding tube was accidentally pulled out during sleep, by patient himself, and the second laparoscopic jejunostomy for this patient was performed successfully. One patient had puncture site pain and was successfully treated with oral analgesics. Other complications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, intestinal perforation, intestinal obstruction, tube dysfunction, pericatheter leakage, and infection at the skin insertion site, were not observed. The 30-day mortality rate was 4.8% (one out of 21), which was not attributed to the procedure. Enteral nutrition was gradually administered 24-48 hours after operation.
conclusionThe novel modified technique of laparoscopic needle catheter jejunostomy is a technically feasible, with a high technical success rate and low complication rate. Its specific advantage is simplicity and safety, and this modified approach can be considered for routine clinical use after long-term outcome evaluation.
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.