Benefit of a laparoscopic jejunostomy feeding catheter insertion to prevent bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy

The placement of a jejunostomy catheter during esophagectomy may cause postoperative bowel obstruction. The proximity of the jejunostomy site to the midline might be associated with bowel obstruction, and we have introduced laparoscopic jejunostomy (Lap-J) to reduce jejunostomy's left lateral gap. We evaluated 92 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between February 2013 and August 2022 to clarify the benefits of Lap-J compared to other methods. The patients were classified into two groups according to the method of feeding catheter insertion: jejunostomy via small laparotomy (J group, n = 75), and laparoscopic jejunostomy (Lap-J group, n = 17). Surgery for bowel obstruction associated with the feeding jejunostomy catheter (BOFJ) was performed on 11 in the J group. Comparing the J and Lap-J groups, the distance between the jejunostomy and midline was significantly longer in the Lap-J group (50 mm vs. 102 mm; P < 0.001). Regarding surgery for BOFJ, the distance between the jejunostomy and midline was significantly shorter in the surgery group than in the non-surgery group (43 mm vs. 52 mm; P = 0.049). During esophagectomy, Lap-J can prevent BOFJ by placing the jejunostomy site at the left lateral position to the midline and reducing the left lateral gap of the jejunostomy.

open adhesiolysis]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in children affected by postoperative bowel obstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective study reviewing charts of all patients who were operated on due to postoperative adhesions in our Department. Demographic data, clinical characteristics and postoperative data were collected.

RESULTS

During the last 8 years, 37 patients were operated on for postoperative intestinal obstructions. 40.5% were operated by laparoscopy and 59.5% by laparotomy. Mean ages were 6.31 and 4.32 years in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. There were no differences in days of evolution of the occlusion, neither in their medical history. Patients in laparoscopic group had better outcomes in the need of central lines (15% vs 61.90% p= 0.012), use of parenteral nutrition (38.46% vs 83.33% p= 0.005), beginning of the enteral nutrition (4.04 vs 8.17 days p= 0.004) and hospital stay (7.77 vs 13.05 days p= 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Open and laparoscopic adhesiolysis are effective to treat adhesive cases. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis has some advantages over open surgery: less need of central lines and parenteral nutrition, earlier start of enteral nutrition, less rate of complications and shorter hospital stay.