ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Laparoscopic and open feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal pathology: a single-centre cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFeeding jejunostomy (FJ) provides critical enteral access for patients undergoing treatment for upper gastrointestinal (GI) pathology. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, complication profile, and operative context of laparoscopic versus open FJ using a standardised laparoscopic technique.
methodsA retrospective cohort study included 576 patients who underwent FJ between March 2018 and August 2024 (302 laparoscopic, 274 open). Patient demographics, operative context, and postoperative complications were analysed. Outcomes are reported as frequencies with relative effect estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Laparoscopic FJ was more frequently performed in the elective setting (286/302 vs. 225/274; OR 3.88, 95% CI 2.20-6.85) and during cancer staging procedures (102/302 vs. 50/274; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.55-3.37). In contrast, laparoscopic FJ was less commonly undertaken during major resections (156/302 vs. 165/274; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98) and emergency surgery (16/302 vs. 49/274; OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.45). On unadjusted analysis, overall postoperative complications were more frequent following laparoscopic FJ (43/302, 14.2%) compared with open FJ (18/274, 6.5%); however, after adjustment for comorbidity burden, procedural urgency, and other clinically relevant covariates, surgical approach was not independently associated with postoperative morbidity (adjusted OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.75-2.05). Tube-related complications, including dislodgement, leakage, and small bowel obstruction, were infrequent. Lower body mass index and female sex were associated with increased odds of obstruction. Early infectious complications occurred exclusively following laparoscopic FJ (5/302, 1.7%), but this association did not persist after multivariable adjustment (adjusted OR 2.60, 95% CI 0.75-9.10).
conclusionLaparoscopic FJ was a safe alternative to open insertion. Although unadjusted complication rates were higher following laparoscopic FJ, surgical approach was not independently associated with early morbidity after risk adjustment, supporting the use of minimally invasive techniques in appropriately selected patients.
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.