Pre-therapy laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is safe and effective in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer

Laparoscopic Witzel feeding jejunostomy: a procedure overlooked!

Purpose

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a critical procedure to establish a source of enteral nutrition for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Minimally invasive surgery has the inherent benefit of better patient outcomes, less postoperative pain, and early discharge. This study aims to describe our total laparoscopic technique of Witzel FJ and to compare its outcome with its open counterpart.

Methods

A retrospective database analysis was performed in patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 20) and open (n = 21) FJ as a stand-alone procedure from July 2018 to July 2022. A readily available nasogastric tube (Ryles tube) and routine laparoscopic instruments were used to perform laparoscopic FJ. Perioperative data and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Baseline preoperative variables were comparable in both groups. The median operative duration in the laparoscopic FJ group was 180 minutes vs. 60 minutes in the open FJ group (p = 0.01). Postoperative length of hospital stay was 3 days vs. 4 days in the laparoscopic and open FJ groups, respectively (p = 0.08). Four patients in the open FJ group suffered from an immediate postoperative complication (none in the laparoscopic FJ group). After a median follow-up of 10 months, fewer patients in the laparoscopic FJ group had complications such as tube clogging, tube dislodgement, surgical-site infection, and small bowel obstruction.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic FJ with the Witzel technique is a safe and feasible procedure with a comparable outcome to the open technique. Patient selection is vital to overcome the initial learning curve.

Laparoscopic vs. open feeding jejunostomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy is a solid way for patients to maintain enteral nutrition. However, debate over the superiority of the laparoscopic vs. laparotomic method has raised concerns in recent years. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes between these two approaches.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from the date of inception to April 2022 for studies comparing laparoscopic and open feeding jejunostomy. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included articles. The primary outcome was the relative risk (RR) of postoperative complications in each group. We also analyzed the major/minor complication rates and operations, excluding major concomitant procedures. The risk of bias of included studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

A total of seven retrospective studies with 1195 patients in total were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy carried a significantly lower postoperative complication rate (RR: 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91, p = 0.02, low certainty of evidence) compared with laparotomy, and the heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 34%, p = 0.18). After excluding major concomitant procedures, the RR between the laparoscopic and open group was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.33-0.70, p < 0.001, low certainty of evidence), suggesting that the laparoscopic approach was superior in terms of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy might reduce the postoperative overall complication rate compared with open feeding jejunostomy.

Impact of Early Jejunostomy Tube Feeding on Clinical Outcome and Parameters of Body Composition in Esophageal Cancer Patients Receiving Multimodal Therapy

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition commonly affects patients with esophageal cancer and has the potential to negatively influence treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of early (preoperative) jejunostomy tube feeding (JTF) in nutritionally 'high risk' patients receiving multimodal therapy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients were selected to undergo early JTF during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in accordance with European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS^®) Society guidelines. Clinical outcomes were compared with patients who received routine JTF from the time of esophagectomy. Body composition was determined from computed tomography (CT) images acquired at diagnosis, after nCRT, and ≥ 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 81 patients received early JTF and 91 patients received routine JTF. Patients who received early JTF had lower body mass index (BMI; 26.1 ± 4.6 vs. 28.4 ± 4.9; p = 0.002), greater weight loss, and worse performance status at diagnosis. Groups were otherwise well-matched for baseline characteristics. Rate of re-intubation (8.8% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.027), pulmonary embolism (5.0% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.046), and 90-day mortality (10.0% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.010) were worse in the early JTF group; however, overall survival was equivalent for both the early and routine JTF groups (p = 0.053). Wide variation in the degree of preoperative muscle loss and total adipose tissue loss was observed across the entire study cohort. Relative preoperative muscle and adipose tissue loss in patients with early and routine JTF was equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients determined to be at 'high risk' of malnutrition, early JTF may prevent excess morbidity after esophagectomy with an associated relative preservation of parameters of body composition.

Association of preoperative sarcopenia with postoperative dysphagia in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the current study was to clarify the relationship between clinical features of dysphagia after esophagectomy and preoperative sarcopenia.

METHODS

A total of 187 cases were included in the current study. The psoas cross-sectional area on pre-treatment computed tomography was measured in thoracic esophageal cancer patients who underwent curative resection. The psoas muscle index (PMI) cut-off levels for sarcopenia were 6.36 cm2/m2 for men and 3.92 cm2/m2 for women. Swallowing function was evaluated using videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) at postoperative days 7-15, and classified according to the food intake level scale (FILS). Perioperative swallowing rehabilitation was performed in all cases.

RESULTS

In the 187 included patients, the median PMI was 5.42 cm2/m2 for men and 3.43 cm2/m2 for women, and 133 cases (71%) met the sarcopenia criteria. The FILS <4 (no oral intake) was 15% in the non-sarcopenia group, and 38% in the sarcopenia group (P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, including pneumonia and re-admission due to pneumonia, between the two groups. Preoperative sarcopenia and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy were be independent risk factors for postoperative dysphagia.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarcopenic patients with esophageal cancer develop postoperative dysphagia more often than non-sarcopenic patients. Prehabilitation and nutritional support for patients with preoperative sarcopenia could play an important role to mitigate postoperative dysphagia.

Complications of feeding jejunostomy placement: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy is an alternative route of enteral nutrition in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal operations when a feeding gastrostomy is not suitable.

METHODS

A single institution review of patients who underwent open or laparoscopic jejunostomy tube (JT) placement between 2009 and 2019 was performed. Data collected included demographics, preoperative serum albumin, surgery indication, concomitancy of procedure, size of JT tube and time to its removal. JT complications were analyzed in the early postoperative period (< 30 days) and in a long-term follow-up (> 30 days). The Chi-square test was used to compare rates of complications according to tube size.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients underwent JT placement, and gastroesophageal cancer (n = 48, 65.7%) was the most common indication. The JT was most frequently placed concomitantly (n = 56, 76.7%) to the primary operation and through a laparoscopic approach (n = 66, 90.4%). A total of 14 patients (19.1%) had early complications and 15 had late complications (20.5%). The reasons for early complications were clogged JT (n = 8, 10.9%), JT dislodgement (n = 3, 4.1%), leakage (n = 2, 2.7%), small bowel obstruction adjacent to the site of the jejunostomy tube (n = 2, 2.7%), JT site infection (n = 1, 1.3%), and intraperitoneal JT displacement (n = 1, 1.3%). The reasons for late complications were clogged JT (n = 6, 8.2%), JT dislodgement (n = 6, 8.2%), JT site infection (n = 3, 4.1%), and JT leakage (n = 1, 1.3%). There was no procedure-related mortality in this series. However, 12 patients (16.4%) died due to their baseline disease. The mean time to tube removal was 83.4 ± 93.6 days. The most frequently used JT size was 14 French (n = 39, 53.4%) but in nine patients the tube size was not reported. No statistical significance (p = 0.75) was found when comparing the two most commonly used sizes to rates of complications.

CONCLUSION

The rate of JT complications in our study is comparable to other published reports in literature. As an alternative route for nutritional status optimization, the procedure appears to be safe despite the number of complications.

Reassessment of the Role of Enteral Tube Feedings for Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Nutrition is important for patients with esophageal cancer because dysphagia can be exacerbated by chemoradiotherapy. Some centers suggest routine enteral tube placement (TF) to facilitate nutrition. This investigation was to evaluate the use of TF access for patients undergoing multi-modality therapy for esophageal carcinoma. This retrospective study analyzed 113 patients who underwent esophagectomy and 97 patients who underwent definition chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer between 2001 and 2013. Throughout this time period, a strategy for selective tube placement was used. Nutrition was assessed through absolute lymphocyte counts, protein, and albumin levels. A total of 28 (30%) patients during preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 31 (32%) of those undergoing definitive chemoradiation received TFs. There were 16 Dobhoff tubes, 28 gastrostomy tubes, and 15 jejunostomies. Tubes were maintained an average of 3.9 months with 20 (34%) of these patients reporting tube-related complications. At the time of surgery, there was no statistical difference in any of the nutritional assessments between those patients who received TF and those who did not. Both groups experienced similar total postoperative complication rates (64% vs 65%) and similar median length of hospital stay (12 to 13 days). Chemoradiotherapy resulted in decreased nutritional parameters; however, there was no difference in the degree of reduction between those who underwent TF and those who did not. The data show that routine placement of enteral access is not necessary for esophageal carcinoma. In fact, the risks of placing enteral access may outweigh the benefits. Administration of TF should be restricted to select patients during chemoradiotherapy or before esophagectomy.

Impact of regular enteral feeding via jejunostomy during neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on body composition in patients with oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Malnourishment and sarcopenia are well documented phenomena in oesophageal cancer. Patients undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy prior to oesophagectomy have complex nutritional needs.

AIM

To examine the effect of regular nutritional support via feeding jejunostomy on overall body composition in patients undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy prior to oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected for 15 patients before and after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. All patients had feeding jejunostomies inserted at staging laparoscopy prior to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and underwent regular jejunostomy feeding. Changes in body composition were determined by analysis of computed tomography imaging.

RESULTS

Patient age was 61.3 ± 12.8 years, and 73% of patients were male. The time between start of chemotherapy and surgery was 107 ± 21.6 d. There was no change in weight (74.5 ± 14.1 kg to 74.8 ± 13.1 kg) and body mass index (26.0 ± 3.8 kg/m² to 26.1 ± 3.4 kg/m²). Body composition analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease in lumbar skeletal muscle index despite regular feeding (45.8 ± 8.0 cm²/m² to 43.5 ± 7.3 cm²/m²; P = 0.045). The proportion of sarcopenic patients increased (33.3% to 60%). Six patients (40%) experienced dose-limiting toxicity during chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Regular jejunostomy feeding during neo-adjuvant chemotherapy can maintain weight and adipose tissue. Feeding alone is not sufficient to maintain muscle mass. Further insight into the underlying processes causing reduced muscle mass in cancer patients may help to provide targeted interventions.

Feeding Jejunostomy Tube Placed during Esophagectomy: Is There an Effect on Postoperative Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) tubes are routinely placed during esophagectomy. However, their effect on immediate postoperative outcomes in this patient population is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of FJ tube placement during esophagectomy on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to evaluate the effect of FJ tube placement during esophagectomy on 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A propensity score-matched cohort was used to compare postoperative outcomes of patients with and without FJ tubes.

RESULTS

An FJ tube was placed in 45% of 2059 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The anastomotic leak rate was 13.5%. Patients with FJ tubes were more likely to have preoperative radiation therapy (59.6% vs 54.9%, p = 0.041), transhiatal esophagectomy (21.5% vs 19.2%, p = 0.012), a malignant diagnosis (93.2% vs 90.4%), and longer operative time (393 min vs 348 min, p < 0.001). In a case-matched cohort, mortality (2% vs 2.4%, p = 0.618) and severe morbidity (38.2% vs 34.6%, p = 0.128) were comparable between patients with and without FJ tubes. FJ tube placement was associated with higher overall morbidity (46% vs 38.6%, p = 0.002), superficial wound infection (6.3% vs 2.9%, p = 0.001), and return to the operating room (16.7% vs 12.5%, p = 0.016). In a subgroup of patients with anastomotic leak, FJ was associated with shorter hospital stay (20.1 days vs 24.3 days, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

These mixed findings support selective rather than routine FJ tube placement during esophagectomy.

Enteral Feeding Access Has an Impact on Outcomes for Patients with Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Esophagectomy: An Analysis of SEER-Medicare

BACKGROUND

Optimal nutrition after esophagectomy is challenging due to alterations in eating, both from the tumor and during surgical recovery. Enteral nutrition via feeding tube is commonly used. The impact of feeding tubes on post-esophagectomy outcomes was examined in a large national data set.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer (1998-2013) undergoing esophagectomy were extracted from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. Chi-square and t tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables. Time trend analyses were performed with Cochran-Armitage survival using log-rank and multivariable analysis with generalized linear modeling.

RESULTS

The study examined 2495 patients. The majority had enteral feeding access (71%, n = 1794) during the perioperative period. Mortality among the patients with feeding tubes was lower at 30 days (5.4% vs 8.4%), 60 days (9.0% vs 13.0%), and 90 days (12.2% vs 15.8%). In the multivariable analysis, the patients with feeding tubes had improved short-term survival at 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.93), 60 days (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and 90 days (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90). The hospital stay was shorter for the patients undergoing enteral feeding tube placement (17.9 vs 19.5 days; p = 0.04). Discharge destination (home vs health care facility) showed no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding tubes in patients undergoing esophagectomy were associated with an increase in short-term survival up to 90 days after surgery. Feeding tube placement was not associated with higher rates of non-home discharges and did not prolong the hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Esophageal Cancer Surgery

Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy offers benefits in decreased postoperative complications and faster recovery. The choice of operation depends on patient and surgeon factors. McKeown or 3-field esophagectomy requires dissection in the abdomen, chest, and neck, with a cervical anastomosis. Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is performed with abdominal and right chest dissection and intrathoracic anastomosis. Transhiatal or transmediastinal esophagectomy is performed with abdominal and cervical dissections and a cervical anastomosis and is preferential in patients with significant pulmonary risk factors. Preparation and operative conduct for laparoscopic and robotic approaches for these operations, and the expected postoperative recovery are detailed.

Nutritional optimization during neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgical resection of esophageal cancer-a narrative review

This narrative review aims to evaluate the evidence for the different nutritional approaches employed during neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer. Patients with esophageal cancer are often malnourished and difficult to optimize nutritionally. While evidence suggests that neoadjuvant therapy can offer a survival advantage, associated toxicity can exacerbate poor nutritional status. There is currently no accepted standard of care regarding optimal nutritional approach. A systematic literature search was undertaken. Studies describing the utilization of an additional nutritional intervention in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy prior to esophagectomy were included. Primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality after esophagectomy. Secondary outcome measures were loss of weight during neoadjuvant therapy, completion rate of intended neoadjuvant therapy, complications from nutritional intervention, 30-day postoperative morbidity after esophagectomy and quality of life during neoadjuvant treatment. Given the heterogeneity of retrieved articles results was presented as a narrative review. Twenty-five studies were included of which 16 evaluated esophageal stenting, four feeding jejunostomy, three gastrostomy, one nasogastric feeding, and one comparative study of esophageal stenting to feeding jejunostomy. 30-day postoperative mortality was only reported in two of the 26 included studies limiting comparison between nutritional strategies. All studies of esophageal stents reported improvements in dysphagia with reported weight change ranging from -5.4 to +6 kg and one study reported 30-day postoperative mortality after esophagectomy (10%). In patients undergoing esophageal stenting for their neoadjuvant treatment overall migration rate was 29.9%. Studies of laparoscopically inserted jejunostomy were all retrospective reviews that demonstrated an increase in weight ranging from 0.4 to 11.8 kg and similarly no study reported 30-day postoperative mortality. Only one comparative study was included that compared esophageal stents to jejunostomy. This study reported no significant difference between the two groups in respect to complication rates (stents 22% vs. jejunostomy 4%, P = 0.11) or increase in weight (stents 4.4 kg vs. jejunostomy 4.2 kg, P = 0.59). Quality of life was also poorly reported. This review demonstrates the uncertainty on the optimal nutritional approach for patients with resectable esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment prior to esophagectomy. A prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study is needed to determine current practice and inform a prospective clinical trial.

Benefits of Supplemental Jejunostomy Tube Feeding During Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced, Potentially Resectable Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer includes neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. However, many patients experience a period of decreased oral intake during neoadjuvant treatment and are at risk for malnutrition. We hypothesize that use of jejunostomy tube (j-tube) feedings during neoadjuvant therapy in selected patients may be associated with better perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database at a single institution was retrospectively analyzed. The study period was from 2005 to 2015. Patients who underwent j-tube placement before neoadjuvant therapy before definitive resection for esophageal cancer were included in the analysis. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who adhered to recommended tube feeds during neoadjuvant therapy (users) and patients who did not adhere (nonusers).

RESULTS

During the study period, 94/301 patients received a j-tube before or during neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer. Seventy-three patients utilized tube feeds regularly during the neoadjuvant phase, while 21 patients did not. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to clinical factors such as dysphagia on presentation, postneoadjuvant therapy performance status, or Charlson Comorbidity Index. Perioperative pneumonia rates were lower in j-tube users compared to nonusers (6.8% [5 of 73] versus 23.8% [5 of 21]), respectively, P = .036); this difference remained significant with adjustment for type of surgery (odds ratio = 0.16, P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

j-Tube users had a significantly lower incidence of pneumonia within 30 days of curative resection when compared to nonusers. j-Tube feedings during neoadjuvant therapy for selected patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer should be encouraged.

Laparoscopic T-tube feeding jejunostomy as an adjunct to staging laparoscopy for upper gastrointestinal malignancies: the technique and review of outcomes

Background

In recent years, staging laparoscopy has gained acceptance as part of the assessment of resectability of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) malignancies. Not infrequently, we encounter tumours that are either locally advanced; requiring neoadjuvant therapy or occult peritoneal disease that requires palliation. In all these cases, the establishment of enteral feeding during staging laparoscopy is important for patients’ nutrition. This review describes our technique of performing laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy and the clinical outcomes.

Methods

The medical records of all patients who underwent laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy following staging laparoscopy for UGI malignancies between January 2010 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The data included patient demographics, operative technique and clinical outcomes.

Results

Fifteen patients (11 males) had feeding jejunostomy done when staging laparoscopy showed unresectable UGI maligancy. Eight (53.3%) had gastric carcinoma, four (26.7%) had oesophageal carcinoma and three (20%) had cardio-oesophageal junction carcinoma. The mean age was 63.3 ± 7.3 years. Mean operative time was 66.0 ± 7.4 min. Mean postoperative stay was 5.6 ± 2.2 days. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy was performed without intra-operative complications. There were no major complications requiring reoperation but four patients had excoriation at the T-tube site and three patients had tube dislodgement which required bedside replacement of the feeding tube. The mean duration of feeding tube was 127.3 ± 99.6 days.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is an important adjunct to staging laparoscopy that can be performed safely with low morbidity. Meticulous attention to surgical techniques is the cornerstone of success.

Laparoscopic percutaneous jejunostomy with intracorporeal V-Loc jejunopexy in esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Barbed sutures are widely used in various laparoscopic digestive surgeries. The purpose of this paper is to present our initial experience of laparoscopic percutaneous jejunostomy with unidirectional barbed sutures in esophageal cancer patients and compare it with our early cases using traditional transabdominal sutures.

METHODS

A total of 118 esophageal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic percutaneous jejunostomy were identified in a single institution in Taiwan from June 2014 to May 2016. The authors' traditional technique consisted of using transabdominal sutures with bolsters to fix a jejunum loop onto the anterior abdominal wall. A novel technique was introduced using intracorporeal suturing with knotless unidirectional barbed monofilament absorbable sutures (V-Loc) to attain a seal around the feeding catheter. A comparison between these two techniques was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty cases with barbed V-Loc sutures and 98 cases with transabdominal sutures were identified. The V-Loc sutures appeared to reduce peristomal skin ulcers (19.4 vs. 0 %, p = 0.040), postoperative pain scores during the first 24 h (1.8 ± 1.4 vs. 0.9 ± 1.1, p = 0.007) and on postoperative day 2 (1.7 ± 1.4 vs. 1.0 ± 0.8, p = 0.026) when compared to patients receiving transabdominal sutures. The mean suturing time using V-Loc sutures was 22 min (14-60 min). The mean onset to resumption of enteral feeding was 1.8 ± 0.8 days and the mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 8 ± 5.1 days, both of which were comparable in the two groups. There was no surgical mortality in our series.

CONCLUSIONS

In the study cohort, the use of knotless unidirectional barbed sutures instead of traditional transabdominal sutures had similar outcomes and appears to be a feasible option for intracorporeal jejunopexy when performing laparoscopic jejunostomy in patients with esophageal cancer.

Clinical Burden of Laparoscopic Feeding Jejunostomy Tubes

INTRODUCTION

Feeding jejunostomies (J tubes) provide enteral nutrition when oral and gastric routes are not options. Despite their prevalence, there is a paucity of literature regarding their efficacy and clinical burden.

METHODS

All laparoscopic J tubes placed over a 5-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical burden was measured by number of clinical contact events (tube-related clinic visits, phone calls, ED visits) and morbidity (dislodgement, clogging, tube fracture, infection, other). Tube replacements were also recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one patients were included. Fifty-nine percent had associated malignancy, and 35 % were placed for nutritional prophylaxis. Mean time to J tube removal was 146 days. J tubes were expected to be temporary in >90 % but only 50 % had sufficient oral intake for removal. Tubes were removed prematurely due to patient intolerance in 8 %. Mortality was 0 %. Morbidity was 51 % and included clogging (12 %), tube fracture (16 %), dislodgement (25 %), infection (18 %) and "other" (leaking, erosion, etc.) in 17 %. The median number of adverse events per J tube was 2(0-8). Mean number of clinic phone calls was 2.5(0-22), ED visits 0.5(0-7), and clinic visits 1.4(0-13), with 82 % requiring more than one J tube-related clinic visit. Unplanned replacements occurred in 40 %.

CONCLUSION

While necessary for some patients, J tubes are associated with high clinical burden.

Outcomes of laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy tube placement in 299 patients

BACKGROUND

Jejunostomy catheters for jejunal feeding are an effective method to improve nutritional status in malnourish patients. However, this procedure is commonly being performed using an open approach, which can be associated with more postoperative pain and prolonged recovery. The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients who underwent placement of feeding jejunostomy using a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent laparoscopic jejunostomy tube placement between 1998 and 2014. Main outcome measures included indication for catheter placement, rate of conversion rate to open surgery, perioperative and late morbidity and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-nine consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic jejunostomy during the study period. The mean age was 64 years, and 81% of patients were male. The mean BMI was 26.2 kg/m(2). The most common indications for catheter placement were resectable esophageal cancer (78%), unresectable esophageal cancer (10%) and gastric cancer (6%). There were no conversions to open surgery. The 30-day complication rate was 4.0% and included catheter dislodgement (1%), intraperitoneal catheter displacement (0.7%), catheter blockage (1%) or breakage (0.3%), site infection requiring catheter removal (0.7%) and abdominal wall hematoma (0.3%). The late complication rate was 8.7% and included jejuno-cutaneous fistula (3.7%), jejunostomy tube dislodgement (3.3%), broken or clogged J-tube (1.3%) and small bowel obstruction (0.3%). The 30-day mortality was 0.3% for a patient with stage IV esophageal cancer who died in the postoperative period secondary to respiratory failure.

CONCLUSION

In this large consecutive series of feeding jejunostomy, the laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe and associated with a low rate of small bowel obstruction and no intraabdominal catheter-related infection.

Laparoscopic distal, subtotal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

The objective of this study was to show laparoscopic subtotal, distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy as a safe and appropriate method for the resection of advanced gastric cancer. This study was conducted at a designated NCI Cancer Center. Subjects of the study were patients with advanced gastric malignancy, including transmural penetration of the tumor and/or nodal disease, requiring subtotal, distal gastrectomy. The main outcome measure is a description of the technique of a laparoscopic subtotal, distal gastrectomy for antral and distal body tumors. In conclusion, the laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric malignancy with a subtotal, distal gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe, oncologically appropriate procedure which provides excellent outcomes.

Nutrition optimization prior to surgery

Optimization of metabolic state prior to major surgery leads to improved surgical outcomes. Nutrition screening protocols should be implemented in the preoperative evaluation, possibly as part of a bundle. Strategies to minimize hyperglycemia and insulin resistance by aggressive preoperative nutrition and carbohydrate loading may promote maintenance of a perioperative anabolic state, improving healing, reducing complications, and shortening the time to recovery of bowel function and hospital discharge. Short courses of preoperative immune-modulating formulas, using combinations of arginine, ω-3 fatty acids, and other nutrients, have been associated with improved surgical outcomes. These immune-modulating nutrients are key elements of metabolic pathways that promote attenuation of the metabolic response to stress and improve both wound healing and immune function. Patients with severe malnutrition and gastrointestinal dysfunction may benefit from preoperative parenteral nutrition. Continuation of feeding through the intraoperative period for severely stressed hypermetabolic patients undergoing nongastrointestinal surgery is another strategy to optimize metabolic state and reduce prolonged nutrition deficits. In this paper, we review the importance of preoperative nutrition and strategies for effective preoperative nutrition optimization.