Trial reportJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2020
A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Jejunostomy and Nasogastric Feeding in Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy.
Trial report in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Reported Outcomes after Surgical, Endoscopic, or Radiological Techniques for Nutritional Support in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Nutrition as prevention for improved cancer health outcomes: a systematic literature review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Pooled it
- Utility and outcomes of routine jejunostomy placement following oesophagectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Routine Feeding Jejunostomy Tube in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy: Do the Advantages Outweigh the Disadvantages?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
- State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Utility of feeding jejunostomy in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy with a high risk of anastomotic leakage.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
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
backgroundEarly postoperative enteral nutrition is recommended for patients undergoing esophagectomy; however, the optimum method of tube feeding remains controversial. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess two common enteral nutrition methods after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was performed with 120 patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy from January 2017 to December 2018. The patients were randomly divided so that 58 patients were in the jejunostomy feeding (JF) group and 62 patients were in the nasogastric feeding (NF) group. The postoperative outcomes, including complications, nutritional status, quality of life, and survival rate, were studied and used as the main parameters to compare the abovementioned tube feeding methods.
resultsThe incidence of overall complications was equivalent between the two groups (P = 0.625), except for bowel obstruction (which occurred 4 times in the JF group but did not occur in the NF group). In the first month after surgery (postoperative month 1, POM1), a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) was observed in the JF group (23.6 ± 3.2) than in the NF group (20.9 ± 3.5, P = 0.032). The global quality-of-life scores were better in the JF group than in the NF group (P < 0.001). In addition, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.816) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.564).
conclusionsCompared with NF, JF provides more safety, efficacy, and utility as nutritional support for minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy patients who have a high incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, the higher risk of intestinal obstruction after JF requires attention.
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.