Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28815083›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017

Routine jejunostomy tube feeding following esophagectomy.

Teus J Weijs, Hanneke W J van Eden, Jelle P Ruurda, Misha D P Luyer, Elles Steenhagen, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen, Richard van Hillegersberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Teus J WeijsDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hanneke W J van EdenDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jelle P RuurdaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Misha D P LuyerDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Elles SteenhagenDivision of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Department of Dietetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Grard A P NieuwenhuijzenDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Richard van HillegersbergDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalnutrition is an important problem following esophagectomy. A surgically placed jejunostomy secures an enteral feeding route, facilitating discharge with home-tube feeding and long-term nutritional support. However, specific complications occur, and data are lacking that support its use over other enteral feeding routes. Therefore routine jejunostomy tube feeding and discharge with home-tube feeding was evaluated, with emphasis on weight loss, length of stay and re-admissions.

methodsConsecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer, with gastric tube reconstruction and jejunostomy creation, were analyzed. Two different regimens were compared. Before January 07, 2011 patients were discharged when oral intake was sufficient, without tube feeding. After that discharge with home-tube feeding was routinely performed. Logistic regression analysis corrected for confounders.

resultsSome 236 patients were included. The median duration of tube feeding was 35 days. Reoperation for a jejunostomy-related complication was needed in 2%. The median body mass index (BMI) remained stable during tube feeding. The BMI decreased significantly after stopping tube feeding: from 25.6 (1st-3rd quartile 23.0-28.6) kg/m

conclusionsWeight loss following esophagectomy occurs once that tube feeding is stopped, independently from the time interval after esophagectomy. Moreover routine discharge with home-tube feeding does not reduce length of stay or readmissions. These findings question the value of routine jejunostomy placement and emphasize the need for further research.

Indexed as

Esophageal canceresophagectomyjejunostomynutrition

Identifiers

PMID28815083
PMCPMC5538975
OpenAlexW2737826371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.