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.

The "double-fired" gastro-jejunostomy as a form of improved efficiency during Whipple procedure.

BACKGROUND: Gastro-jejunostomy (GJ) after pylorus-resecting pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is most commonly performed in a hand-sewn fashion. Intestinal stapled anastomosis are reported to be as effective as hand-sewn in terms of patency and risk of leakage in other indications. However, the use of a stapled gastro-jejunostomy hasn't been fully assessed in PD. The aim of the present technical report is to evaluate functional outcomes of stapled GJ during PD, its associated effect on operative time and related complications. METHODS: The institutional database for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was retrospectically reviewed. Pylorus resecting open PD without vascular or multivisceral resections were considered for the analysis. The incidence of clinically significant delayed gastric emptying (DGE from the International Stufy Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) grade B and C), other complications, operative time and overall hospitalization were evaluated. RESULTS: Over a 10-years study period, 1182 PD for adenocarcinoma were performed and recorded in the database. 243 open Whipple procedures with no vascular and with no associated multivisceral resections were available and constituted the study population. Hand-sewn (HS) anastomosis was performed in 175 (72 %), stapled anastomosis (St) in 68 (28 %). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups, with the exception of a higher rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the HS group (74 % St vs. 86 % HS, p = 0.025). Intraoperatively, a significantly reduced median operative time in the St group was observed (248 min St vs. 370 mins HS, p < 0.001). Post-operatively, rates of clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying (7 % St vs. 14 % HS, p = 0.140), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (10 % St, 15 % HS, p = 0.300), median length of stay (7 days for each group, p = 0.289), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (4.4 % St vs. 6.3 % HS, p = 0.415) and complication rate (22 % St vs. 34 % HS, p = 0.064) were similar between groups. However, readmission rates were significantly lower after St GJ (13.2 % St vs 29.7 % HS, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that a stapled GJ anastomosis during a standard Whipple procedure is non-inferior to a hand-sewn GJ, with a comparable rate of DGE and no increase of gastrointestinal related long term complications. Further, a stapled GJ anastomosis might be associated with reduced operative times.

Long-term outcome for children undergoing open hepatico-jejunostomy for choledochal malformations: a 43-year single-center experience.

PURPOSE: To report on our 43-year single-center experience with children operated on for Choledochal Malformations (CMs), focusing on long-term results and Quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive pediatric patients with CMs who underwent surgical treatment at our center between October 1980 and December 2022 were enrolled in this retrospective study. We focused on long-term postoperative complications (POCs), considered to be complications arising at least 5 years after surgery. We analyzed QoL status once patients reached adulthood, comparing the results with a control group of the same age and sex. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen patients underwent open excision of CMs with a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (HJ). The median follow-up was 8.95 years (IQR: 3.74-24.41). Major long-term POCs occurred in six patients (8.9%), with a median presentation of 11 years after surgery. The oldest patient is currently 51. No cases of biliary malignancy were detected. The QoL of our patients was comparable with the control group. CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that open complete excision of CMs with HJ achieves excellent results in terms of long-term postoperative outcomes. However, since the most severe complications can occur many years after surgery, international cooperation is advisable to define a precise transitional care follow-up protocol.

The impact of jejunostomy feeding on nutritional outcomes after oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional status is compromised long-term following oesophagectomy. Controversy surrounds the optimal route for nutrition support postoperatively and there is wide variation in the use of feeding jejunostomy tubes. METHODS: A retrospective service evaluation was conducted for all consecutive adults who underwent oesophagectomy for a cancer diagnosis within a specialist centre between April 2016 and July 2019 (n = 165). Nutritional and clinical outcomes were compared for patients who received jejunostomy feeding (n = 24), versus those who did not (n = 141). RESULTS: Patients with feeding jejunostomy lost significantly less weight at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively compared to those without jejunostomy (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). This remained statistically significant in multiple regression, controlling for age, gender, preoperative tumour staging and adjuvant treatment (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). Median length of home enteral feeding was 10 weeks after discharge in the jejunostomy group. We observed minor jejunostomy tube-related complications in four patients (16.7%). Of those readmitted within 90 days of surgery in the non-jejunostomy group, nutritional failure was a factor in 43.2% of these readmissions. "Rescue tube feeding" was required by 8.5% of the non-jejunostomy group within the first postoperative year, including 6.4% within 90 days of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Use of short-term supplementary jejunal feeding in addition to oral intake after hospital discharge is beneficial for maintaining weight after oesophagectomy. We suggest a future randomised-controlled trial to confirm these findings.

[Delayed esophagojejunostomy as a damage control principle]. / Otsrochennyi ezofagoeyunoanastomoz kak printsip «Damage Control¼.

The authors describe 2 patients with rare gastric diseases and indications for gastrectomy with delayed esophagojejunostomy for objective causes. In one case, they could not determine extent of resection, and other patient had hemorrhagic shock. Damage control principle was applied in both cases.

Feeding Jejunostomy Tube in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy: Utilization and Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy (JT) tubes are often utilized as an adjunct to optimize nutrition for successful esophagectomy; however, their utility has come into question. The aim of this study was to evaluate utilization and outcomes associated with JTs in a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: The NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent elective esophagectomy. JT utilization was assessed between 2010 and 2019. Post-operative outcomes were compared between those with and without a JT on patients with esophagectomy-specific outcomes (2016-2019), with results validated using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on key clinicopathologic factors, including tumor stage. RESULTS: Of the 10,117 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy over the past decade, 53.0% had a JT placed concurrently and 47.0% did not. Utilization of JTs decreased over time, accounting for 60.0% of cases in 2010 compared to 41.7% in 2019 (m = - 2.14 95%CI: [- 1.49]-[- 2.80], p < 0.01). Patients who underwent JT had more composite wound complications (17.0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of all-cause morbidity (40.4% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.01). Following PSM, 1007 pairs were identified. Analysis of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a higher rate of superficial skin infections (6.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.01) in the JT group. However, length of stay, reoperation, readmission, anastomotic leak, composite wound complications, all-cause morbidity, and mortality rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, feeding jejunostomy tubes were utilized less frequently over the past decade. Similar perioperative outcomes among matched patients support the safety of esophagectomy without an adjunct feeding jejunostomy tube.

Jejunal access for enteral nutrition: A practical guide for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy.

For patients requiring long-term (>4 weeks) jejunal nutrition, jejunal medication delivery, or decompression, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) or a direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) may be indicated. PEG-J is the preferred option if a PEG tube is already in place or if simultaneous gastric decompression and jejunal nutrition are needed. DPEJ is recommended for patients with altered anatomy due to foregut surgery, high risk of jejunal extension migration, and whenever PEG-J fails. Successful placement rates are lower for DPEJ but recent publications have reported improvements, partly due to the use of balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Both techniques are contraindicated in cases of active peritonitis, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and ongoing bowel ischaemia, and relative contraindications include, among other, peptic ulcer disease and haemodynamic or respiratory instability. In this narrative review, we present the most recent evidence on indications, contraindications, technical considerations, adverse events, and outcomes of PEG-J and DPEJ.

Outcomes in Enteral Access Based on Specialty and Approach: A Single-Center Three-Year Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Interventional radiologic, endoscopic, and surgical approaches are commonly utilized to establish durable enteral access in adult patients. The purpose of this study is to examine differences in nutritional outcomes in a large cohort of patients undergoing enteral access creation. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent enteral access procedures by interventional radiologists, gastroenterologists, and surgeons between 2018 and 2020 at a single institution were reviewed. Included access types were percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), open or laparoscopic gastrostomy, laparoscopic jejunostomy, and percutaneous gastrostomy (perc-G), percutaneous jejunostomy , or primary gastrojejunostomy. RESULTS: 912 patients undergoing enteral access cases met the criteria for inclusion. PEGs and perc-Gs were the most common procedures. PEGs had higher Charlson scores (4.5 [3.0-6.0] versus 2.0 [1.0-2.0], P = 0.007) and lower starting albumin (3.0 [2.6-3.4] versus 3.6 [3.5-3.8] g/dL, P < 0.0001). Time to goal feeds (4 [2-6] vs 4 [3-5] d, P = 0.970), delta prealbumin (3.6 [0-6.5] versus 6.2 [2.3-10] mg/L, P = 0.145), time to access removal (160 [60-220] versus 180 [90-300] d, P = 0.998), and enteral access-related complications (19% versus 16%, P = 0.21) between PEG and perc-G were similar and differences were not statistically significant. A greater percent change in prealbumin was noted for perc-G (10 [-3-20] versus 41.7% [11-65], P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having higher Charlson scores and worse preoperative nutrition, there is a similar incidence of enteral access-related complications, time to goal feeds, delta prealbumin, or time to access removal between PEG and perc-G patients. Our data suggest that access approach should be made on an individual basis, accounting for anatomy and technical feasibility.

A clinical nomogram for predicting small bowel obstruction after extubation after radical resection of esophageal cancer and jejunostomy.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction after extubation is among the most serious complications of radical esophageal cancer and jejunostomy resection. This study aimed to explore the risk factors and treatment methods for small bowel obstruction after extubation and construct a predictive model to guide its clinical management. METHODS: Clinical data for 514 patients who underwent esophagectomy with jejunostomy for esophageal cancer were collected. A nomogram was constructed using the independent risk factors for small bowel obstruction after extubation determined on multivariable logistic regression analysis, and a subgroup analysis was performed of the treatment methods for the 61 patients with small bowel obstruction after extubation. RESULTS: The nomogram incorporated the independent risk factors for small bowel obstruction after extubation (gastrointestinal function recovery [P < .001], postoperative albumin reduction ratio [P = .009], and serious postoperative complications [P < .001]) in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. The final model had an area under the curve of 0.829 (95% confidence interval, 0.775-0.883). The calibration plots demonstrated high concordance between the predicted and actual probabilities. The model demonstrated excellent discriminatory power for internal and time validation, with adjusted C-statistics of 0.821 and 0.810 (95% confidence interval, 0.686-0.933), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, an abnormal anion gap (P = .016) and low serum albumin level (P = .005) were associated with recurrent small bowel obstruction. The model's area under the curve was 0.815 (95% confidence interval, 0.683-0.948). The probability of recurrence among patients with small bowel obstruction after extubation was 78.3% when the 2 risk factors were present. CONCLUSION: The clinical nomogram based on small bowel obstruction after extubation predictors recommends aggressive surgical intervention for patients with small bowel obstruction after extubation and an abnormal anion gap and low serum albumin level at admission.

Safety and efficacy of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy placement in patients with previous upper gastrointestinal resection: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous jejunal enteral access can be obtained with percutaneous endoscopic gastric jejunostomy (PEGJ) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) tubes. PEGJ may not be feasible in patients with previous gastric resection (PGR) and DPEJ may be the only option. Our aim is to determine if DPEJ tubes can be placed successfully in patients with history of gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and if success rates are comparable to DPEJ or PEGJ in those without prior GI surgery. METHODS: We reviewed all tube placements performed from 2010 to present. Procedures were performed using a pediatric colonoscope. Previous upper GI surgery was defined as PGR or esophagectomy with gastric pull-up. Adverse events (AEs) were graded per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. Mild events included unplanned medical consultation or hospitalization <3 days, and moderate events included repeat endoscopy without surgical intervention. RESULTS: Successful placement rates were high regardless of GI surgical history. Patients receiving a DPEJ with a history of GI surgery were significantly less likely to experience an AE compared with those receiving DPEJ with no history and compared with PEGJ patients with or without a history. CONCLUSIONS: DPEJ placement in patients with previous upper GI surgery has very high success rate. It is associated with lower AE rates than patients receiving DPEJ without previous gastric surgery, or PEGJ regardless of previous gastric surgery. Patients with a history of upper GI surgery requiring enteral access may benefit from DPEJ over PEGJ placement considering its very high success rate and lower incidence of AEs.

Feeding gastrostomy and duodenostomy using the round ligament of the liver versus conventional feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis.

Esophageal cancer patients require enteral nutritional support after esophagectomy. Conventional feeding enterostomy to the jejunum (FJ) is occasionally associated with small bowel obstruction because the jejunum is fixed to the abdominal wall. Feeding through an enteral feeding tube inserted through the reconstructed gastric tube (FG) or the duodenum (FD) using the round ligament of the liver have been suggested as alternatives. This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between FG/FD and FJ. Studies published prior to May 2022 that compared FG or FD with FJ in cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy were identified via electronic literature search. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies met inclusion criteria to yield a total of 1687 patients. Compared with the FJ group, the odds of small bowel obstruction (OR 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.33), catheter site infection (OR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.51) and anastomotic leakage (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.89) were lower for the FG/FD group. Odds of pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, chylothorax and hospital mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter for the FG/FD group (median difference, -10.83; 95% CI, -18.55 to -3.11). FG and FD using the round ligament of the liver were associated with lower odds of small bowel obstruction, catheter site infection and anastomotic leakage than FJ in esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y feeding jejunostomy as a long-term solution for severe feeding problems in children.

Enteral feeding is a common problem in children with gastric emptying disorders. Traditional feeding methods in these patients often show a high rate of complications and maintenance issues. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y feeding jejunostomy (LRFJ) has been described in a few patients as a minimal invasive option for enteral access in these children. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of the LRFJ procedure in our tertiary referral center. We conducted a retrospective case-series including all patients, aged 0-18 years old, that underwent a LFRJ procedure between August 2011 and December 2020 for the indication of oral feeding intolerance due to delayed gastric emptying. Outcomes evaluated were complications (short and long term) and parenteral satisfaction. In total, 12 children were identified that underwent LRFJ for the indication of oral feeding intolerance due to delayed gastric emptying. A total of 16 complications were noted in 8/12 patients (67%). Severity classified by Clavien-Dindo were grade I (n = 13), grade II (n = 1), and grade IIIB (n = 2). In 11/12 patients, parents were satisfied with the results. CONCLUSIONS: Although minor complications after LRFJ are common in our patients, this technique is a safe solution in patients with gastric emptying disorders leading to a definitive method of enteral feeding and high parenteral satisfaction. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Traditional tube feeding in children (duodenal, PEG-J-tubes) with severe delayed gastric emptying can be challenging with a high rate of complications and maintenance issues. • Open loop jejunostomy and Roux-en-Y jejunostomy are alternative, permanent methods of feeding but either invasive or are accompanied by severe complications. Little is known in the literature about laparoscopic Roux-en-Y feeding jejunostomy. WHAT IS NEW: • Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y feeding jejunostomy is a permanent, safe and minimal invasive alternative option for enteral feeding in children with severe delayed gastric emptying..

Outcomes of feeding jejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A single-center experience.

Aims: Feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) is one option for enteral nutrition after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD); however, controversy regarding its clinical outcome(s) persists. The aim of the present study was to determine the safety and efficacy of FJT management. Materials and Methods: Data from 156 consecutive patients, who underwent PD between January 2015 and December 2017, were retrospectively reviewed. Safety was assessed according to postoperative and tube-related complications. Nutritional efficacy was evaluated based on improvement in serum albumin levels. Results: Thirty-day morbidity and mortality rates were 61.0% (n = 95) and 1.9% (n = 3), respectively. The rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying were 30.8% and 9.0%, respectively. In total, nine (5.8%) patients experienced complications directly related to FJT. Eight patients experienced surgical site infection adjacent to the catheter/skin interface. Although all required catheter removal at the bedside or in the office, none required reoperation. The improvement in serum albumin level 1 month after PD was 40.7% compared with 1 week after PD. Conclusion: FJT was useful in improving nutritional intake and status. Although FJT was associated with minor self-limiting complications, they could be managed by simple bedside or office treatment. As such, results of this study support the safety and efficacy of the FJT protocol used in the authors' department for nutritional management.

Risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal and its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal approach in patients with oesophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enterocutaneous fistula after removal of the jejunostomy tube leads to multiple problems, such as cosmetic problems, decreased quality of life, electrolyte imbalances, infectious complications, and increased medical costs. However, the risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula (REF) after button jejunostomy removal remain unclear. Therefore, in this study, we assessed the risk factors for REF after button jejunostomy removal in patients with oesophageal cancer and reported the surgical outcomes of the novel extraperitoneal approach (EPA) for REF closure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 47 patients who underwent button jejunostomy removal after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. We assessed the risk factors for REF in these patients and reported the surgical outcomes of the novel EPA for REF closure at the International University of Health and Welfare Hospital between March 2013 and October 2021. The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of REF after removal of the button jejunostomy, which was assessed using a maintained database. The risk factors and outcomes of the EPA for REF closure were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: REFs occurred in 15 (31.9%) patients. In the univariate analysis, REF was significantly more common in patients with albumin level < 4.0 g/dL (p = 0.026), duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal (p = 0.003), and with a fistula < 15.0 mm (p = 0.002). The multivariate analysis revealed that a duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal (odds ratio [OR]: 7.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38-36.8; p = 0.019) and fistula < 15.0 mm (OR: 8.08; 95% CI: 1.50-43.6; p = 0.002) were independent risk factors for REF. EPA for REF closure was performed in 15 patients. The technical success rate of EPA was 88.2%. Of the 15 EPA procedures, fistula closure was achieved in 12 (80.0%). The complications of EPA (11.7%) were major leakages (n = 3) and for two of them, EPA procedure was re-performed, and closure of the fistula was finally achieved. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal and fistula < 15.0 mm are the independent risk factors for REF after button jejunostomy removal. EPA for REF closure is a novel, simple, and useful surgical option for patients with REF after oesophagectomy.

Feeding jejunostomy following esophagectomy may increase the occurrence of postoperative small bowel obstruction.

This study aimed to clarify the characteristics and treatment of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy in patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. In this single-center retrospective study, 363 patients underwent esophagectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer at the Wakayama Medical University Hospital between January 2014 and June 2021. All patients who underwent esophagectomy routinely underwent feeding jejunostomy or gastrostomy. Feeding jejunostomy was used in the cases of gastric tube reconstruction through the posterior mediastinal route or colon reconstruction, while feeding gastrostomy was used in cases of retrosternal route gastric tube reconstruction. Nasogastric feeding tubes and round ligament technique were not used. Postoperative small bowel obstruction occurred in 19 of 197 cases of posterior mediastinal route reconstruction (9.6%), but in no cases of retrosternal route reconstruction because of the feeding gastrostomy (P < .0001). Of the 19 patients who had bowel obstruction after feeding jejunostomy, 10 patients underwent reoperation (53%) and the remaining 9 patients had conservative treatment (47%). The cumulative incidence of bowel obstruction after feeding jejunostomy was 6.7% at 1 year and 8.7% at 2 years. Feeding jejunostomy following esophagectomy is a risk factor for small bowel obstruction. We recommend feeding gastrostomy inserted from the antrum to the jejunum in the cases of gastric tube reconstruction through the retrosternal route or nasogastric feeding tube in the cases of reconstruction through the posterior mediastinal route.

Role of intraoperative feeding jejunostomy in esophageal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy was routinely placed during esophagectomy to ensure postoperative enteral feeding. Improved anastomosis technique and early oral feeding strategy after esophagectomy has led to question the need for the routine placement of feeding jejunostomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate role of feeding jejunostomy during Ivor Lewis operation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 414 patients who underwent the Ivor Lewis operations from January 2015 to December 2018. RESULTS: 61 patients (14.7%) received jejunostomy insertion. The most common indication for jejunostomy was neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). 48 patients (79%) had jejunostomy removed within 60 days after the surgery and the longest duration of jejunostomy inserted state was 121 days. About two-third of the patients with jejunostomy had never prescribed with an enteral feeding product. Among 353 patients without intraoperative feeding jejunostomy, 11(3.1%) received delayed jejunostomy insertion. Graft-related problems (6 patients), cancer progression (3 patients), acute lung injury (1 patient), and swallowing difficulty (1 patient) were reasons for delayed feeding jejunostomy insertion. Complication rate was relatively high as 24 patients (33.3%) out of 72 patients with jejunostomy insertion had complications and 7 patients (9.7%) visited ER more than twice with jejunostomy-related complications. CONCLUSION: Only 3.6% patients who underwent the Ivor Lewis operation during 4-year span had anastomosis leakage. Although one-third of the patients with jejunostomy were benefited with alternative method of feeding after discharge, high complication rate regarding jejunostomy should be also considered. We believe feeding jejunostomy should not be applied routinely with prophylactic measures and should be reserved to very carefully selected patients with multiple high-risk factors.

Laparoscopic Gastro-jejunostomy: An Ideal Solution to the Problem of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Post-corrosive Intake.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of Laparoscopic Gastro-jejunostomy in patients presenting with Gastric Outlet obstruction secondary to Corrosive intake at the Services Hospital. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Surgery, Services Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from June 2013 to June 2021. METHODOLOGY: Data was gathered from the patients who presented with gastric outlet obstruction with a pre-hospitalised history of corrosive intake. Consenting patients subsequently underwent laparoscopic gastro-jejunostomy and were followed up post-operatively at a 1-week time-point and 4-week time-point to monitor progress. Studied variables included duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, complications, and mortality at the 1st and 4th weeks. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients participated in the study including 27 (90%) females and 3 (10%) males. The mean age was 27.2 ± 4.07 years. The mean duration of hospital stay was 9.3 ± 3.2 days. Complications were seen in 3 patients (10%) with 1 death (3.33%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gastro-jejunostomy appears to be safe and effective in corrosive intake patients presenting with gastric outlet obstruction. KEY WORDS: Corrosive Intake, Gastric outlet obstruction, Laparoscopic, Gastrojejunostomy.