↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of laparoscopic jejunostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube with jejunal extension: long-term durability and nutritional outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of laparoscopic jejunostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube with jejunal extension: long-term durability and nutritional outcomes
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5954-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivy N. Haskins, Andrew T. Strong, Mary Baginsky, Gautam Sharma, Matthew Karafa, Jeffrey L. Ponsky, John H. Rodriguez, Matthew D. Kroh

Abstract

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). 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. 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). 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Other 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,279,674
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,094
of 6,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,680
of 450,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#55
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,601 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.