Ivy N Haskins1, Andrew T Strong1, Mary Baginsky2, Gautam Sharma1, Matthew Karafa3, Jeffrey L Ponsky1,4, John H Rodriguez1, Matthew D Kroh5,6,7. 1. Section of Surgical Endoscopy, Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A-100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Nutrition, The George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Section of Surgical Endoscopy, Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A-100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. krohm@clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae. 6. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve, Cleveland, OH, USA. krohm@clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae. 7. Digestive Disease Institute, Clevelad Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. krohm@clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Enteral access through the jejunum is indicated when patients cannot tolerate oral intake or gastric feeding. While multiple approaches for feeding jejunal access exist, few studies have compared the efficacy of these techniques. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term durability, re-intervention rates, and nutritional outcomes following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes with jejunal extension tubes (PEG-JET) versus laparoscopic jejunostomy tubes (j-tubes). METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent PEG-JET or laparoscopic jejunostomy tube placement from January 2005 through December 2015 at our institution. Thirty-day and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients underwent PEG-JET and 307 patients underwent laparoscopic j-tube placement during the defined study period. In terms of 30-day outcomes, patients who underwent PEG-JET placement were significantly more likely to experience a tube dislodgement event (p = 0.005) and undergo a re-intervention (p < 0.001). Patients who had a laparoscopic j-tube placed were significantly more likely to meet their enteral feeding goals (p = 0.002) and less likely to require nutritional supplementation with total parenteral nutrition (TPN) (p < 0.001). With regard to long-term outcomes, patients who underwent PEG-JET placement were significantly more likely to experience tube occlusion (p < 0.001) and require an endoscopic or surgical tube re-intervention (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent laparoscopic j-tube placement were significantly more likely to experience a tube site leak (p = 0.015) but were less likely to require nutritional supplementation with TPN (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic jejunostomy tubes provide more durable long-term enteral access compared to PEG-JET. Consideration should be given to laparoscopic jejunostomy tube placement in eligible patients who cannot tolerate oral intake or gastric enteral feeding.
INTRODUCTION: Enteral access through the jejunum is indicated when patients cannot tolerate oral intake or gastric feeding. While multiple approaches for feeding jejunal access exist, few studies have compared the efficacy of these techniques. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term durability, re-intervention rates, and nutritional outcomes following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes with jejunal extension tubes (PEG-JET) versus laparoscopic jejunostomy tubes (j-tubes). METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent PEG-JET or laparoscopic jejunostomy tube placement from January 2005 through December 2015 at our institution. Thirty-day and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients underwent PEG-JET and 307 patients underwent laparoscopic j-tube placement during the defined study period. In terms of 30-day outcomes, patients who underwent PEG-JET placement were significantly more likely to experience a tube dislodgement event (p = 0.005) and undergo a re-intervention (p < 0.001). Patients who had a laparoscopic j-tube placed were significantly more likely to meet their enteral feeding goals (p = 0.002) and less likely to require nutritional supplementation with total parenteral nutrition (TPN) (p < 0.001). With regard to long-term outcomes, patients who underwent PEG-JET placement were significantly more likely to experience tube occlusion (p < 0.001) and require an endoscopic or surgical tube re-intervention (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent laparoscopic j-tube placement were significantly more likely to experience a tube site leak (p = 0.015) but were less likely to require nutritional supplementation with TPN (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic jejunostomy tubes provide more durable long-term enteral access compared to PEG-JET. Consideration should be given to laparoscopic jejunostomy tube placement in eligible patients who cannot tolerate oral intake or gastric enteral feeding.
Authors: M H DeLegge; P F Duckworth; L McHenry; A Foxx-Orenstein; R M Craig; D F Kirby Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 1995 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Anand Rajan; Peerapol Wangrattanapranee; Jonathan Kessler; Trilokesh Dey Kidambi; James H Tabibian Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-04-27