PS02.001: IMPLICATIONS OF JEJEUNOSTOMY OMISSION IN COMBINATION WITH EARLY FEEDING IN A MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Early oral feeding in esophagectomy is recognised as safe in esophagectomy. Typically, enteral feeding has been used in combination to avoid weight loss in the recovery period post surgery. Recently, avoidance of jejeunal feeding has been shown to be efficacious with respect to nutritional safety over one year post surgery. In Toronto, jejeunostomy insertion is routinely omitted in our minimally invasive esophagectomy practice. Methods This study sought to determine the nutritional impact this practice has by determining the examining a retrospective cohort before and after the practice change in 2016. Only patients with complete weight measurement follow up to 1 year were incorporated. Data displayed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Results The initial results analysis consists of a total of 63 patients (n = 38 with feeding Jej (FJ) and n = 25 without (NFJ). Median BMI at surgery was 26 kg/m2 (23.1–30.5) with no differences between the groups identified: FJ BMI 25.9 (23–29.4) vs NFJ 26.8(23.9–32.2). Length of stay was 10 days in both groups. At one year, BMI was 23.4 (20.6–26.0) with no difference between the groups, FJ 22.4 (20.6–25.9) vs 23.4 (20.9- 27.7), P = 0.798. Median weight loss at 1 year was 11.2kg (9.1%). More weight loss was identified in the NFJ group in the 1st month, 4kg (1.9–5.1) vs 7kg (4.5–10.4) (P = 0.035) but subsequent intervals demonstrated no significant difference. Readmissions within one year were higher in the FJ group (n = 10, of which 2 needed operative intervention for jejeunostomy site issues), as compared to a single admission in the NFJ group for a para-conduit hernia repair. Conclusion Early commencement of oral nutrition in combination with the omission of feeding jejeunostomy insertion has no prolonged nutritional impact after the 1st month. Overall, Body mass index is reduced in esophagectomy patients over the first year irrespective of feeding approach. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".