Laparoscopic vs. open feeding jejunostomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Feeding jejunostomy is a solid way for patients to maintain enteral nutrition. However, debate over the superiority of the laparoscopic vs. laparotomic method has raised concerns in recent years. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes between these two approaches.

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from the date of inception to April 2022 for studies comparing laparoscopic and open feeding jejunostomy. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included articles. The primary outcome was the relative risk (RR) of postoperative complications in each group. We also analyzed the major/minor complication rates and operations, excluding major concomitant procedures. The risk of bias of included studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

A total of seven retrospective studies with 1195 patients in total were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy carried a significantly lower postoperative complication rate (RR: 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91, p = 0.02, low certainty of evidence) compared with laparotomy, and the heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 34%, p = 0.18). After excluding major concomitant procedures, the RR between the laparoscopic and open group was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.33-0.70, p < 0.001, low certainty of evidence), suggesting that the laparoscopic approach was superior in terms of postoperative complications.

Our results indicate that laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy might reduce the postoperative overall complication rate compared with open feeding jejunostomy.