Objective:

To evaluate the safety and postoperative complication profiles of laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy (LFJ) compared to open feeding jejunostomy (OFJ) using a standardized technique, including efficacy outcomes.

Key Findings:

• Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity compared to open feeding jejunostomy, highlighting its potential as a preferred method.
• Standardized techniques in laparoscopic procedures may lead to more consistent outcomes, suggesting a need for training and adherence to protocols.
• Complications were graded according to the Clavien–Dindo classification, allowing for systematic assessment and comparison across studies.

Interpretation:

LFJ may offer advantages over OFJ in terms of safety and recovery; however, the technical demands and variability in surgical technique require careful consideration and training for optimal outcomes.

Limitations:

• Retrospective design may introduce bias, including selection bias.
• Variability in patient populations and surgical contexts limits generalizability.
• Small sample sizes in existing literature hinder robust comparisons.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy could be a safer alternative to open feeding jejunostomy, warranting further investigation in larger, multicenter studies to validate these findings.