Purely laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy: a procedure which deserves more attention

Outcome of laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy, comparison of a pure laparoscopic technique with Witzel's tunnel to open technique: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Obstructive 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 METHODS

We 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.

RESULT

We 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.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic 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.

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.

Growing use of home enteral nutrition: a great tool in nutrition practice toolbox

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Home enteral nutrition (HEN) is a well-established practical nutrition therapy tool that is typically managed by an interdisciplinary team. Prevalence of HEN is increasing across the globe given significant evidence for utility, feasibility, efficacy, safety, and reliability of HEN in helping patients meeting their nutrition needs. The current review highlights the growing use of HEN in the context of what is novel in the field including trends in HEN practice with regards to tubes and connectors, feeding formula and real food blends, and common complications. The review also highlights that the use of HEN is expected to expand further over coming years emphasizing the need for national consensus recommendations and guidelines for HEN management.

RECENT FINDINGS

The growing use of HEN has always been parallel to adoption of holistic definitions and concept of malnutrition in clinical nutrition practice and more understanding of the need for malnutrition risk stratification, meeting unmet needs in practice and addressing challenges that lead to suboptimal enteral nutrition.

SUMMARY

Research and advancements in technology as well as in tube feeding formula industry have led to the development of more solutions and have helped identify and implement best HEN practices.