Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27785689›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2017

Complications of Feeding Jejunostomy Tubes in Patients with Gastroesophageal Cancer.

Audrey H Choi, Michael P O'Leary, Shaila J Merchant, Virginia Sun, Joseph Chao, Dan J Raz, Jae Y Kim, Joseph Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Jejunostomy and Nasogastric Feeding in Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Audrey H ChoiDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Michael P O'LearyDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Shaila J MerchantDepartment of Surgery, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Virginia SunDivision of Nursing Research and Education, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Joseph ChaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Dan J RazDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Jae Y KimDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Joseph KimDepartment of Surgery, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA. joseph.kim1@stonybrookmedicine.edu.
City of Hope · USCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USQueen's University · CA

Funding

Oncology Research Career Development ProgramK12CA001727 · NCI · CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · PI MORTIMER, JOANNE E. · 1992 to 2024
$14.6M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA001727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeeding jejunostomy tubes (FJT) in patients undergoing resection of gastroesophageal cancers facilitate perioperative nutrition. Data regarding FJT use and complications are limited. STUDY

designA single institution review was performed for patients who underwent perioperative FJT placement for gastrectomy or esophagogastrectomy from 2007 to 2015. FJT-related and unrelated complications were evaluated.

resultsFJTs were inserted for total/completion gastrectomy (n = 49/117, 41.9 %), proximal gastrectomy (n = 7/117, 6.0 %), or esophagogastrectomy (n = 61/117, 52.1 %). Ninety percent (n = 106/117) of patients used an FJT at some time point. Although the majority of patients (75.2 %) used FJTs after discharge, 8.5 % (n = 10/117) never used the FJT and 10.3 % (n = 12/117) used the FJT only during hospitalization. Overall, 44.4 % (n = 52/117) had FJT-related complications, including dislodgement (n = 22), clogging (n = 13), and leakage (n = 6). The majority of FJT complications were resolved by telephone triage (13.5 %) or bedside/clinic intervention (57.7 %), but 3.4 % required operative intervention for small bowel obstruction (n = 3) and hemorrhage (n = 1). FJT complications were more common with gastrectomy than esophagogastrectomy (53.6 vs. 36.0 %), perhaps related to longer FJT use in gastrectomy patients (71 vs. 38 days).

conclusionsFJT-related complications are common, occurring more frequently after gastrectomy than esophagogastrectomy. In most patients, complications can be managed by simple measures, rarely requiring operative intervention. Nevertheless, the need for FJTs should be carefully considered to balance nutritional benefits with the risks of insertion and usage.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnteral NutritionEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleGastrectomyHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalJejunostomyMaleMalnutritionMiddle AgedNutritional StatusRetrospective StudiesComplicationsEsophageal cancerGastric cancerJejunostomy tubeOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID27785689
PMCPMC5568416
OpenAlexW2542623150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.