ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
Utility and outcomes of routine jejunostomy placement following oesophagectomy.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFeeding jejunostomy (FJ) is used widely as a nutritional adjunct in oesophagectomy. However, FJ placement is also associated with additional morbidity. While FJ may be invaluable in some patients, particularly in those who suffer postoperative complications, it may be an avoidable source of distress and morbidity in others. This study aimed to assess the utility and outcomes of FJ in patients with uncomplicated recovery after oesophagectomy.
methodsOutcomes for 100 consecutive patients who underwent oesophagectomy with uncomplicated recovery (Clavien-Dindo ≤2) were included from a prospectively maintained database. All had routine FJ placement. Demographic, disease, operative and clinical outcomes were analysed. Necessity of FJ usage (as assessed by specialist dietician) and complications were recorded. Differences between patients requiring postdischarge FJ use, and those who did not, were assessed.
resultsComplete data for a total of 97 patients were included. Overall, only 9/97(9.3%) patients required ongoing FJ usage on discharge. No significant differences in demographics between two groups were observed. Postoperative complications were seen in 42/97(43.3%) patients, most commonly respiratory complications. FJ-related complications were recorded in 18/97(18.5%) patients, most commonly jejunostomy tube displacement.
conclusionsThe low rate of postoperative FJ usage and relatively high risk of associated complications suggests that a selective FJ placement strategy may have positive implications for patients over a routine placement strategy. No significant predictive factors for requiring postoperative FJ use were identified; work to define optimal feeding adjunct strategies in the postoperative context is needed.
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.