Establishment and clinical application of modified endoscopic freka trelumina placement.
- Author:
Yankang FENG
1
;
Ming CUI
1
;
Yun HE
2
;
Xilong ZHAO
3
Author Information
1. Department of General Surgery, 920th Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Kunming 650032, China.
2. Department of Anesthesiology, 920 Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Kunming 650032, China.
3. Department of Pathology, 920 Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Kunming 650032, China.Email: zhaoxilong@ailiyun.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Decompression, Surgical;
instrumentation;
methods;
Enteral Nutrition;
instrumentation;
methods;
Female;
Gastric Outlet Obstruction;
etiology;
surgery;
Gastroparesis;
etiology;
surgery;
Gastroscopy;
instrumentation;
methods;
Humans;
Intubation, Gastrointestinal;
instrumentation;
methods;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Retrospective Studies;
Stomach Diseases;
etiology;
surgery
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2019;22(1):79-84
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To establish a modified endoscopic Freka Trelumina placement (mEFTP) for modifying or substituting the traditional endoscopic Freka Trelumina placement (EFTP) and to explore the safety and feasibility of mEFTP in patients requiring enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal decompression in general surgery.
METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of patients undergoing EFTP or mEFTP at General Surgery Department of 920 Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from January 2016 to January 2018.
INCLUSION CRITERIA:the function of lower digestive tract was normal; patients who could not eat through mouth or nasogastric tube needed to have enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal decompression; the retention time of Freka Trelumina (FT) was not expected to exceed 2 months.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:contraindication for gastroscopy; suspected shock or digestive tract perforation; suspected mental diseases; infectious diseases of digestive tract; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. mEFIP procedure was as follow. FT was inserted into stomach through one side nasal cavity, gastroscope was inserted into stomach cavity, and the front part of FT was clamped with biopsy forceps through biopsy hole. Biopsy forceps and FT were inserted into the pylorus or anastomosis under gastroscope, and they were pushed into the duodenum or output loop. During pushing, the gastroscope did not pass through the duodenum or output loop. The biopsy forceps was released and pushed out, and FT was pushed with biopsy forceps synchronously into the duodenum or output loop more than 5 cm. The foreign body forceps was inserted through the biopsy hole, and the FT tube was held in the stomach and pushed to the duodenum or output loop. The previous steps repeated until the suction cavity reached the pylorus or anastomosis. The gastroscope was exited gently; the guide wire was pulled out slowly. EFTP procedure: foreign body forceps was used to clamp the front part of FT, and gastroscope, foreign body forceps and FT pass the pylorus or anastomosis simultaneously to reach the descendent duodenum or output loop as a whole. The time of catheterization was recorded and position of FT was examined by X-ray within 1 h after catheterization. The success rate of catheterization and morbidity of complications after catheterization were evaluated and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS:A total of 141 patients were enrolled, 72 in the mEFTP group and 69 in the EFTP group. In mEFTP group, 45 cases were males and 27 were females with an average age of 55.8(37-76) years; 27 cases had normal upper gastrointestinal anatomy (postoperative gastroplegia syndrome due to colon cancer in 17 cases, due to rectal cancer in 10 cases) and 45 had upper gastrointestinal anatomic changes (gastric cancer with pylorus obstruction in 18 cases and anastomotic block after gastroenterostomy in 27 cases). In the EFTP group, 41 were males and 28 were females with an average age of 55.3(36-79) years; 33 cases had normal upper gastrointestinal anatomy (postoperative gastroplegia syndrome due to colon cancer in 20 cases, due to rectal cancer in 13 cases) and 36 had upper gastrointestinal anatomic changes (gastric cancer with pylorus obstruction in 15 cases and anastomotic block after gastroenterostomy in 21 cases). In patients with normal upper digestive tract anatomy, the average catheterization time of mEFTP was (4.9±1.7) minutes which was shorter than (7.6±1.7) minutes of EFTP(t=6.683, P<0.001). In patients of gastric cancer with pyloric obstruction, the average catheterization time of mEFTP was (6.6±1.6) minutes which was shorter than (10.5±2.6) minutes of EFTP (t=4.724, P<0.001). In patients with anastomotic block after gastroenterostomy, the average catheterization time of mEFTP was (11.3±2.5) minutes which was shorter than (15.1±3.5) minutes of EFTP (t=4.513, P<0.001). In patients with normal upper gastrointestinal anatomy, there were no significant differences in the success rate of catheterization and the morbidity of catheterization complication between mEFTP and EFTP (all P>0.05). In patients with upper gastrointestinal anatomic changes, the success rate of catheterization in mEFTP was even higher than that in EFTP, but the difference was not significant [97.8%(41/45) vs. 86.1%(31/36), χ²=2.880, P=0.089]; while the morbidity of catheterization complication in mEFTP was lower than that in EFTP [0 vs. 8.3%(3/36), χ²=3.894, P=0.048].
CONCLUSIONS:Whether the upper gastrointestinal anatomy is normal or not, mEFTP presents shorter catheterization time, higher success catheterization rate than EFTP, and is safety. mEFTP can be widely applied to clinical practice for patients requiring enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal decompression.
