ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Complications of feeding jejunostomy placement: a single-institution experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic vs. open feeding jejunostomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Nutritional Support via Jejunostomy Placed During Staging Laparoscopy for Esophagogastric Cancer: A Case Series.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic round‑ligament duodenostomy synchronized with posterior mediastinal reconstruction.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Optimizing nutritional support in upper gastrointestinal surgery: A comprehensive review of feeding jejunostomy techniques and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Roux-en-Y jejunostomy in gastroparesis: Insight into patient perspectives and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Nutritional support via feeding jejunostomy in esophago-gastric cancers: proposal of a common working strategy based on the available evidence.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
- Comparisons of nutritional status and complications between patients with and without postoperative feeding jejunostomy tube in gastric cancer: a retrospective study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- A multifaceted comparative analysis of image and video technologies in gastrointestinal endoscope and their clinical applications.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
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
backgroundFeeding jejunostomy is an alternative route of enteral nutrition in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal operations when a feeding gastrostomy is not suitable.
methodsA single institution review of patients who underwent open or laparoscopic jejunostomy tube (JT) placement between 2009 and 2019 was performed. Data collected included demographics, preoperative serum albumin, surgery indication, concomitancy of procedure, size of JT tube and time to its removal. JT complications were analyzed in the early postoperative period (< 30 days) and in a long-term follow-up (> 30 days). The Chi-square test was used to compare rates of complications according to tube size.
resultsSeventy-three patients underwent JT placement, and gastroesophageal cancer (n = 48, 65.7%) was the most common indication. The JT was most frequently placed concomitantly (n = 56, 76.7%) to the primary operation and through a laparoscopic approach (n = 66, 90.4%). A total of 14 patients (19.1%) had early complications and 15 had late complications (20.5%). The reasons for early complications were clogged JT (n = 8, 10.9%), JT dislodgement (n = 3, 4.1%), leakage (n = 2, 2.7%), small bowel obstruction adjacent to the site of the jejunostomy tube (n = 2, 2.7%), JT site infection (n = 1, 1.3%), and intraperitoneal JT displacement (n = 1, 1.3%). The reasons for late complications were clogged JT (n = 6, 8.2%), JT dislodgement (n = 6, 8.2%), JT site infection (n = 3, 4.1%), and JT leakage (n = 1, 1.3%). There was no procedure-related mortality in this series. However, 12 patients (16.4%) died due to their baseline disease. The mean time to tube removal was 83.4 ± 93.6 days. The most frequently used JT size was 14 French (n = 39, 53.4%) but in nine patients the tube size was not reported. No statistical significance (p = 0.75) was found when comparing the two most commonly used sizes to rates of complications.
conclusionThe rate of JT complications in our study is comparable to other published reports in literature. As an alternative route for nutritional status optimization, the procedure appears to be safe despite the number of complications.
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.