ArticleBMC surgery2024
Outcome of laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy, comparison of a pure laparoscopic technique with Witzel's tunnel to open technique: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic and open feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal pathology: a single-centre cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Optimizing nutritional support in upper gastrointestinal surgery: A comprehensive review of feeding jejunostomy techniques and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionObstructive upper GI cancer commonly uses feeding jejunostomy as a standard procedure. Surgeons implemented laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy via minimally invasive surgery, employing a variety of techniques. This study assessed the perioperative results, safety, and costs associated with laparoscopic versus open jejunostomy surgeries. We used only Witzel's tunnel and standard laparoscopic instruments. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe collected data from all patients who underwent feeding jejunostomy between January 2016 and June 2018. We recorded pertinent data on baseline, surgical outcomes, postoperative results, complications, and costs. The study excluded patients with jejunostomy as a conversion or an addition.
resultWe divided the 74 patients into 2 groups: 30 underwent laparoscopy and 44 underwent open surgery. The mean operational times were 89.67 and 91.64 min and showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.678). The mean morphine dosage was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (3.3 vs. 7.19, p = < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery lowered the median time of feeding initiation, feeding accomplished, and postoperative stay, although none of these reached statistical significance. There were significantly higher surgical expenses in the laparoscopic group (16,410 vs. 11,685 Thai Baht) (p < 0.001); however, median overall expenditures did not significantly differ (105,147 vs. 116,198 Thai Baht) (p = 0.387). Laparoscopic versus open surgery had similar incidences of postoperative complications (20% vs. 25%, p = 0.846). The feeding tube catheter location was infection-free in all patients in our study.
conclusionLaparoscopic jejunostomy feeding was safe, and postoperative morphine consumption was lower. Increasing operational costs did not have a significant impact on overall expenditures. Witzel's tunnel may reduce jejunostomy site infections.
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.