2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-018-4303-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surgical jejunostomy and radiological gastro-jejunostomy tube feeding in children: risks, benefits and nutritional outcomes

Abstract: PurposeRadiologically inserted gastrojejunal tubes (RGJ) and surgical jejunostomy (SJ) are established modes of jejunal feeding. The aim of the study is to review nutritional outcomes, complications and the practical consideration to enable patients and carers to make informed choice.MethodsRetrospective review of patient notes with a RGJ or SJ in 2010, with detailed follow-up and review of the literature.ResultsBoth RGJ and SJ are reliable modes to provide stable enteral nutrition. Both have complications and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
12
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our previous series [2] which showed stable nutritional outcomes in jejunally fed patients; in our current cohort of patients, the median increase in weight in those who had the second fundoplication with interim GJ feeds after the failed first fundoplication was 5 kg. This was more than those done without the interim NJ feeds (3.75 kg).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 46%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our previous series [2] which showed stable nutritional outcomes in jejunally fed patients; in our current cohort of patients, the median increase in weight in those who had the second fundoplication with interim GJ feeds after the failed first fundoplication was 5 kg. This was more than those done without the interim NJ feeds (3.75 kg).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 46%
“…The pooled rate of reoperation following failed fundoplication in children with neurological impairment being 15%, and 7% in children without neurological impairment [1]. Whist jejunal feeding has been proved to be a reasonable alternative to redo fundoplication [2] with good nutritional outcomes, it has inherent morbidities such as the need for continuous feeding, tube dislodgement / blockage We reviewed our experience of such patients in the current study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, a systematic review comparing these publications was published [ 20 ]. Open surgery is associated with a different type (more severe) and a higher rate of complications compared to the LRFJ, as there is a high (6–40%) incidence of wound infections [ 17 , 23 , 24 ] and volvulus (14–25%) [ 24 26 ] compared to respectively 8% and 0% in our patient population. Despite this difference, the open jejunostomy showed, as expected, the same complications related to the jejunostomy site as the laparoscopic jejunostomy site: leakage (17–43%) [ 4 , 17 , 23 ] and hypergranulation (no percentages available) [ 27 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…In one patient with a volvulus the Roux limb was only 6 cm [ 25 ]. In the studies of McCann et al and Singh et al no details about Roux limb length were described but all patients with volvulus received open surgery [ 24 , 26 ]. In our series, the Roux limb was relatively short (10–15 cm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An appropriate linear growth was not achieved in our study. Compared with other GT ( 33 ), percutaneous endoscopic GT (PEG) ( 34 ), and the surgical jejunostomy (SJ) studies ( 35 ), our patients had similar weight-for-age z -score improvement from −4.02 to −3.42 in 1 year in NE tube feeding, from −2.8 to −1.8 in 1 year in GT, from −1.5 to 0.9 in 6 months in PEG, and from −3.7 to −2.6 in 1 year in SJ. In addition, we analyzed the growth of patients who subsequently received surgical GT ( N = 8) and fundoplication ( N = 7) and showed a decrease in weight-for-age z -score from −2.76 ± 1.73 to −3.25 ± 2.91 and an increase in height-for-age z-score from −3.34 ± 2.35 to −3.19 ± 2.60 during follow-up for 1,164.3 ± 697.7 days.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%