Feeding catheter gastrostomy with the round ligament of the liver prevents mechanical bowel obstruction after esophagectomy

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.

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.

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.

Clinical Benefits of Routine Feeding Jejunostomy Tube Placement in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Routine placement of a feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) following esophagectomy remains controversial due to the risk of complications including small bowel obstruction (SBO). This study aimed to evaluate FJT placement following esophagectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive 229 patients undergoing thoracoscopic esophagectomy between January 2010 and June 2020. Short-term outcomes, postoperative nutritional status, incidence of SBO, and long-term outcomes were compared between patients according to FJT placement.

RESULTS

The total operative duration was significantly longer in the FJT group compared to the no FJT group (P < 0.0001); however, no differences in overall or severe postoperative morbidity were observed. Body weight loss at discharge was significantly attenuated in patients with FJT (5% vs 7%, P = 0.001). Serum cholinesterase levels were significantly higher in patients with FJT (P = 0.002), while no difference was observed in serum albumin levels. At 6-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed in serological markers or percentage body weight. The incidence of SBO was significantly higher in the FJT group (P = 0.006). The 5-year incidence of SBO was 12%. Patients in the FJT group had higher progression-free and overall survival compared to patients in the no FJT group (P = 0.041 and P = 0.033, respectively). A similar trend toward better survival in the FJT group was observed after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine placement of FJT significantly improves postoperative nutritional status and may contribute to improved long-term survival but is associated with increased long-term risk of SBO.

Is it necessary to routinely perform feeding jejunostomy at the time of esophagectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a routine procedure at the time of esophagectomy in some centers. With the widespread popularization of enhanced recovery after surgery, the necessity of FJ has been increasingly questioned. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and effectiveness between with (FJ group) or without (no-FJ group) performing FJ at the time of esophagectomy. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were overall postoperative complications, postoperative pneumonia, intestinal obstruction, and weight loss at 3 and 6 months after esophagectomy. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis. About 12 studies comprising 2,173 patients were included. The FJ group had a longer LOS (WMD = 2.05, P = 0.01) and a higher incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR = 11.67, P < 0.001) than the no-FJ group. The incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR = 1.24, P = 0.31) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.43, P = 0.13) were not significantly different, nor the weight loss at 3 months (WMD = 0.58, P = 0.24) and 6 months (P > 0.05) after esophagectomy. Current evidence suggests that routinely performing FJ at the time of esophagectomy appears not to generate better postoperative outcomes. FJ may need to be performed selectively rather than routinely. More studies are required to further verify.

A Meta-analysis of Jejunostomy Versus Nasoenteral Tube for Enteral Nutrition Following Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nutritional therapy is of paramount importance for patients undergoing esophagectomy. The jejunostomy and nasoenteral tube are the popular routes for nutritional therapy. However, which one is the preferred route is unclear. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and efficacy of the two routes for nutritional therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE (till September 17, 2020) were searched. The primary outcome was postoperative pneumonia. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stays (LOS), bowel obstruction, catheter dislocation, anastomotic leakage, overall postoperative complications, and postoperative albumin. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving a total of 1,531 patients in the jejunostomy group and 1,375 patients in the nasoenteral tube group were included. Compared with patients in the nasoenteral tube group, those in the jejunostomy group had a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.68, P < 0.001), shorter LOS (WMD = -0.85, P < 0.001), and lower risk of catheter dislocation (OR = 0.15, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.84, P = 0.43), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.87, P = 0.59), and postoperative albumin (WMD = -0.40, P = 0.24). However, patients in the jejunostomy group had a higher risk of bowel obstruction (OR = 8.42, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Jejunostomy for enteral nutrition showed superior outcomes in terms of postoperative pneumonia, LOS, and catheter dislocation. Jejunostomy may be the preferred enteral nutritional route following esophagectomy.

Applications of hepatic round ligament/falciform ligament flap and graft in abdominal surgery-a review of their utility and efficacy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite their ubiquitous presence, easy availability and diverse possibilities, falciform ligament and hepatic round ligament have been used less frequently than their potential dictates. This article aims to comprehensively review the applications of hepatic round ligament/falciform ligament flap and graft in abdominal surgery and assess their utility and efficacy.

METHODS

Medical literature/indexing databases were searched, using internet search engines, for pertinent articles and analysed.

RESULTS

The studied flap and graft have found utility predominantly in the management of diaphragmatic hernias, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic perforations, biliary reconstruction, venous reconstruction, post-operative pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage, hepatic cyst cavity obliteration, liver bleed, sternal dehiscence, splenectomy, reinforcement of aortic stump, feeding access, diagnostic/therapeutic access into portal system, composite tissue allo-transplant and ventriculo-peritoneal shunting where they have exhibited the desired efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatic round ligament/falciform ligament flap and graft are versatile and have multifarious applications in abdominal surgery with some novel and unique uses in hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery including liver transplantation. Their evident efficacy needs wider adoption to realise their true potential.

Vertical distance from navel as a risk factor for bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Placement of feeding jejunostomy (PFJ) during esophagectomy is an effective method to maintain adequate nutrition, but is associated with serious complications such as bowel obstruction and jejunal torsion. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the incidence, clinical features, and risk factors of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy (BOFJ) after PFJ.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 70 patients who underwent esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer and treated with PFJ between March 2013 and December 2019 in our hospital. Abdominal dissection was performed under hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) from March 2013 to March 2015, and was changed to complete laparoscopic surgery in April 2015. We compared patients with and without BOFJ, and the incidence of BOFJ was evaluated. The primary endpoint was incidence of BOFJ after PFJ.

Results

Six patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with BOFJ, all of whom were symptomatic and in the HALS group. In addition, 3 cases displayed histories of recurrent BOFJ (3, 3, and 5 times). Laparotomy was performed in all cases. Subgroup analysis of the HALS group showed a significant difference only in straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel as a significant pre- and perioperative factor (117 mm [101–130 mm] vs. 89 mm [51–150 mm], p < 0.001). Furthermore, dividing straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel into VD and HD, only VD differed significantly (107 mm [93–120 mm] vs. 79 mm [28–135 mm], p = 0.010), not HD (48 mm [40–59 mm] vs. 46 mm [22–60 mm], p = 0.199).

Conclusions

VD between the jejunostomy and navel was associated with BOFJ after PFJ with HALS esophagectomy. PFJ < 9 cm above the navel during HALS esophagectomy might effectively prevent BOFJ.

Long-Term Outcome of Patients with Locally Advanced Clinically Unresectable Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Conversion Surgery after Induction Chemotherapy with Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil

BACKGROUND

Although definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is recommended for patients with locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer, the outcome is unsatisfactory. We previously demonstrated the safety and efficacy of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) and subsequent conversion surgery (CS) for patients with locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer. However, whether or not induction DCF chemotherapy and subsequent CS improve the long-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer is unclear.

METHODS

A total of 177 consecutive patients with locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer without distant metastasis were included in this study. Of these, 55 patients received DCF induction chemotherapy, of whom 36 underwent CS. We divided these 36 patients into two groups according to clinical response, which was analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The toxicities related to DCF chemotherapy were manageable. The response rate to induction DCF chemotherapy was 67%. R0 resection was achieved in 81% of the 36 patients who underwent subsequent CS. No serious postoperative complications were observed. Histopathological CR was achieved in 17% of the 36 patients, and the 3- and 5-year survival rates after CS were 61% and 54%, respectively. The outcomes of the patients who obtained good clinical response was better than the outcomes of patients who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction DCF chemotherapy and subsequent CS show acceptable toxicity and offer the chance of long-term survival in patients with locally advanced clinically unresectable esophageal cancer.

The Optimal Feeding Enterostomy Creation During Esophagectomy to Reduce the Long-Term Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is commonly created during esophagectomy for postoperative enteral nutrition, it can be a cause of postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO). We introduced a technique of feeding enterostomy using the round ligament of the liver (FERL) to reduce SBO. In this study, we aimed to clarify the efficacy of FERL in reducing the postoperative SBO compared with FJ.

METHODS

We assessed 400 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction between 2011 and 2016, before and after the introduction of FERL (FJ, n = 200; FERL, n = 200). The cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy were compared between the FJ and the FERL groups.

RESULTS

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery was more frequent in the FERL group than in the FJ group (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in the FERL group were significantly less frequent than those in the FJ group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). When stratifying by the abdominal surgical approach, the cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in a laparoscopic approach were less frequent in the FERL group than those in the FJ group (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The FERL technique can reduce the incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in patients undergoing esophagectomy.

A simple, novel laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy technique to prevent bowel obstruction after esophagectomy: the "curtain method"

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a common treatment to support patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy. However, severe FJ-related complications, such as bowel obstruction, occasionally occur. We investigated the ability of our simple, novel FJ technique, the "curtain method," to prevent bowel obstruction.

METHODS

In laparoscopic surgery, the main mechanism of bowel obstruction involves torsion of the mesentery accompanied by migration of the intestine across the fixed FJ through the space surrounded by a triangle comprising the ligament of Treitz, fixed FJ, and spleen rather than adhesion. Our "curtain method" involves closure of this triangle zone with omentum, and the appearance of the lifted omentum resembles a curtain. Sixty patients treated with this modified FJ were retrospectively compared with 13 patients treated with conventional FJ in terms of the incidence of bowel obstruction, peritonitis, stoma site infection, and catheter obstruction.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, 60 patients underwent esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction accompanied by modified laparoscopic FJ. The median observation period, including the period after tube removal, was 644 days. No FJ-associated bowel obstruction, the prevention of which was the primary aim, occurred in any patient. Likewise, no peritonitis or dislodgement occurred. Eight patients (13%) developed a stoma site infection with granulation. The feeding tube became occluded in 11 patients (18%); however, a new feeding tube was reinserted under fluoroscopy for all of these patients. From 2003 to 2012, 13 patients underwent conventional FJ. The median observation period was 387 days. Three patients (23%) developed bowel obstruction by torsion 71 to 134 days after the first surgery, and all were treated by emergency operations. Other FJ-related complications were not different from those in the modified FJ group.

CONCLUSION

Our simple, novel technique, the "curtain method," for prevention of laparoscopic FJ-associated bowel obstruction after esophagectomy is a safe additional surgery.

Bowel obstruction associated with a feeding jejunostomy and its association to weight loss after thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Background

Our aim was to clarify the incidence of bowel obstruction associated with a feeding jejunostomy (BOFJ) after thoracoscopic esophagectomy and its association to characteristics and postoperative change in body weight.

Methods

We reviewed 100 consecutive patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and placement of a jejunostomy feeding catheter for esophageal cancer. The incidence of BOFJ was evaluated and the change in body weight after surgery was compared between patients with and without BOFJ.

Results

BOFJ developed in 17 patients. Compared to patients without BOFJ, those with BOFJ had a higher preoperative body mass index (23.3 kg/m² versus 20.9 kg/m², P = 0.022), and greater postoperative body weight loss rate: 3 month, decrease to 84.2% of initial body weight versus 89.3% (P = 0.002). Patients with BOFJ had shorter distance between the jejunostomy and midline (40 mm versus 48 mm, P = 0.011) compared to patients without BOFJ. On multivariate analysis, higher preoperative body mass index (odds ratio (OR) = 9.248; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.344–63.609; p = 0.024), higher postoperative weight loss at 3 months (OR = 8.490; 95% CI = 1.765–40.837, p = 0.008), and shorter distance between the jejunostomy and midline (OR = 8.160; 95% CI = 1.675–39.747, p = 0.009) were independently associated with BOFJ.

Conclusion

Patients of BOFJ had greater preoperative body mass, shorter distance between jejunostomy and midline, and greater postoperative weight loss.