Purpose: Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a critical procedure to establish a source of enteral nutrition for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Minimally invasive surgery has the inherent benefit of better patient outcomes, less postoperative pain, and early discharge. This study aims to describe our total laparoscopic technique of Witzel FJ and to compare its outcome with its open counterpart. Methods: A retrospective database analysis was performed in patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 20) and open (n = 21) FJ as a stand-alone procedure from July 2018 to July 2022. A readily available nasogastric tube (Ryles tube) and routine laparoscopic instruments were used to perform laparoscopic FJ. Perioperative data and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results: Baseline preoperative variables were comparable in both groups. The median operative duration in the laparoscopic FJ group was 180 minutes vs. 60 minutes in the open FJ group (p = 0.01). Postoperative length of hospital stay was 3 days vs. 4 days in the laparoscopic and open FJ groups, respectively (p = 0.08). Four patients in the open FJ group suffered from an immediate postoperative complication (none in the laparoscopic FJ group). After a median follow-up of 10 months, fewer patients in the laparoscopic FJ group had complications such as tube clogging, tube dislodgement, surgical-site infection, and small bowel obstruction. Conclusion Laparoscopic FJ with the Witzel technique is a safe and feasible procedure with a comparable outcome to the open technique. Patient selection is vital to overcome the initial learning curve.

Purpose: This study examines the impacts of omitting nasogastric tube (NGT) placement following cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, comparing outcomes to those from early NGT removal. Methods: In a retrospective cohort of esophagectomy patients treated for esophageal cancer, participants were divided into two groups: group 1 had the NGT inserted post-CEGA and removed by postoperative day 3, while group 2 underwent the procedure without NGT placement. We primarily investigated anastomotic leak rates, also analyzing hospital stay duration, pulmonary complications, and NGT reinsertion. Results: Among 50 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients, 30 in group I were compared with 20 in group II. The baseline demographic and tumor characteristics were similar between both groups. The overall incidence of anastomotic leak was 14.0%, comparable in both groups (16.7% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.63). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the no NGT group (median of 7 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.03) with similar major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa; 13.3% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.63). There was no 30-day mortality, and one patient in each group had reinsertion of NGT for conduit dilatation. Conclusion The exclusion of an NGT across CEGA after esophagectomy did not influence the anastomotic leak rate with comparable complications and a shorter hospital stay.

Purpose: This study examines the impacts of omitting nasogastric tube (NGT) placement following cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, comparing outcomes to those from early NGT removal. Methods: In a retrospective cohort of esophagectomy patients treated for esophageal cancer, participants were divided into two groups: group 1 had the NGT inserted post-CEGA and removed by postoperative day 3, while group 2 underwent the procedure without NGT placement. We primarily investigated anastomotic leak rates, also analyzing hospital stay duration, pulmonary complications, and NGT reinsertion. Results: Among 50 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients, 30 in group I were compared with 20 in group II. The baseline demographic and tumor characteristics were similar between both groups. The overall incidence of anastomotic leak was 14.0%, comparable in both groups (16.7% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.63). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the no NGT group (median of 7 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.03) with similar major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa; 13.3% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.63). There was no 30-day mortality, and one patient in each group had reinsertion of NGT for conduit dilatation. Conclusion The exclusion of an NGT across CEGA after esophagectomy did not influence the anastomotic leak rate with comparable complications and a shorter hospital stay.

Purpose: This study examines the impacts of omitting nasogastric tube (NGT) placement following cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEGA) in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, comparing outcomes to those from early NGT removal. Methods: In a retrospective cohort of esophagectomy patients treated for esophageal cancer, participants were divided into two groups: group 1 had the NGT inserted post-CEGA and removed by postoperative day 3, while group 2 underwent the procedure without NGT placement. We primarily investigated anastomotic leak rates, also analyzing hospital stay duration, pulmonary complications, and NGT reinsertion. Results: Among 50 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients, 30 in group I were compared with 20 in group II. The baseline demographic and tumor characteristics were similar between both groups. The overall incidence of anastomotic leak was 14.0%, comparable in both groups (16.7% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.63). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the no NGT group (median of 7 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.03) with similar major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa; 13.3% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.63). There was no 30-day mortality, and one patient in each group had reinsertion of NGT for conduit dilatation. Conclusion The exclusion of an NGT across CEGA after esophagectomy did not influence the anastomotic leak rate with comparable complications and a shorter hospital stay.