ArticleBMC surgery2021
Laparoscopic vs. open feeding jejunostomy insertion in oesophagogastric cancer.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic vs. open feeding jejunostomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic and open feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal pathology: a single-centre cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A simplified technique for laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy and its outcomes.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes of jejunostomy-tube placement in surgical patients with esophageal cancer.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic jejunostomy during McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Outcome of laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy, comparison of a pure laparoscopic technique with Witzel's tunnel to open technique: a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic Witzel feeding jejunostomy: a procedure overlooked!Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJejunal feeding is an invaluable method by which to improve the nutritional status of patients undergoing neoadjuvant and surgical treatment of oesophageal malignancies. However, the insertion of a feeding jejunostomy can cause significant postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing placement of feeding jejunostomy by conventional laparotomy with an alternative laparoscopic approach.
methodsA retrospective review of data prospectively collected at the Oxford Oesophagogastric Centre between August 2017 and July 2019 was performed including consecutive patients undergoing feeding jejunostomy insertion.
resultsIn the study period, 157 patients underwent jejunostomy insertion in the context of oesophageal cancer therapy, 126 (80%) by open technique and 31 (20%) laparoscopic. Pre-operative demographic and nutritional characteristics were broadly similar between groups. In the early postoperative period jejunostomy-associated complications were noted in 54 cases (34.4%) and were significantly more common among those undergoing open as compared with laparoscopic insertion (38.1% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.049). Furthermore, major complications were more common among those undergoing open insertion, whether as a stand-alone or at the time of staging laparoscopy (n = 11/71), as compared with insertion at the time of oesophagectomy (n = 3/86, P = 0.011).
conclusionsThis report represents the largest to our knowledge single-centre comparison of open vs. laparoscopic jejunostomy insertion in patients undergoing oesophagectomy in the treatment of gastroesophageal malignancy. We conclude that the laparoscopic jejunostomy insertion technique described represents a safe and effective approach to enteral access which may offer superior outcomes to conventional open procedures.
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.