Background: Jejunal 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. Methods: A 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. Results: In 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). Conclusions: This 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.

Laparoscopic vs. open feeding jejunostomy insertion in oesophagogastric cancer

Bracalente G.;Neccia M.;Giuliani A.;
2021

Abstract

Background: Jejunal 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. Methods: A 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. Results: In 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). Conclusions: This 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.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11697/180573
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact