Serrano Aguayo Pilar, Gros Herguido Noelia, Parejo Campos Juana, Barranco Moreno Antonio, Tous Romero María Del Castillo, Pereira Cunill José Luis, Alarcón Del Agua Isaías, Socas Macias María, García Luna Pedro Pablo, Morales Conde Salvador
Unidad de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Universitario del Rocío, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Junta de Andalucía, Spain.
Unidad de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Universitario del Rocío, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Junta de Andalucía, Spain.
Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016 Dec;16:24-29. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Sep 18.
Gastrostomy feeding tube insertion has become a common procedure as it enables patients who require long term enteral feeding. Conventional surgical gastrostomies were the only way of gaining enteral access in patients in which it is not possible to pass an endoscope or a nasogastric tube required for endoscopic or radiological gastrostomies, and in patients in which certain anatomical abnormalities contraindicate performing these techniques. As conventional surgical gastrostomies are associated with high morbidity, especially gastric leakage around the tube, percutaneous laparoscopic assisted gastrostomy (PLAG) may be a better way to gain enteral access.
Observational study of a prospective cohort of 224 patients on whom a gastrostomy was performed for nutritional support between January 2009 and October 2015 at Virgen del Rocío University Hospital in Seville. The types of gastrostomies carried out were: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG, n = 106), percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG, n = 89), conventional surgical gastrostomy, Open Stamn or Laparoscopic Janeway (SG, n = 9) and percutaneous laparoscopic assisted gastrostomy (PLAG, n = 20), technique that we describe in detail. Short and long term complications are described.
Many more complications were seen in the conventional gastrostomy group than in the other three groups, especially leakage of gastric content around the tube, with burning and irritation of the skin (66% compared with 2.83% in PEG and 0% in PLAG and PRG). The group with the highest proportion of patients completely free of complications was PLAG (75%), whilst in the conventional surgical gastrostomy group, no patient was completely free of complications.
We found lower complication rate in PLAG than any other technique. We believe that PLAG could be preferred technique for patients on whom it is not possible to perform PEG or PRG, as it is safe and easy.
胃造口喂养管置入术已成为一种常见手术,因为它能满足需要长期肠内营养的患者。传统外科胃造口术是在内镜或放射介入胃造口术所需的内镜或鼻胃管无法通过的患者,以及某些解剖学异常禁忌实施这些技术的患者中获得肠内通路的唯一方法。由于传统外科胃造口术的发病率较高,尤其是管周胃漏,经皮腹腔镜辅助胃造口术(PLAG)可能是获得肠内通路的更好方法。
对2009年1月至2015年10月在塞维利亚的罗西奥圣母大学医院接受胃造口术以获得营养支持的224例患者的前瞻性队列进行观察性研究。实施的胃造口术类型包括:经皮内镜下胃造口术(PEG,n = 106)、经皮放射介入胃造口术(PRG,n = 89)、传统外科胃造口术(开放式斯坦姆或腹腔镜詹韦术,SG,n = 9)和经皮腹腔镜辅助胃造口术(PLAG,n = 20),我们将详细描述该技术。描述了短期和长期并发症。
传统胃造口术组的并发症比其他三组多得多,尤其是管周胃内容物漏出,伴有皮肤烧灼和刺激(66%,而PEG组为2.83%,PLAG组和PRG组为0%)。完全无并发症的患者比例最高的组是PLAG组(75%),而在传统外科胃造口术组中,没有患者完全无并发症。
我们发现PLAG的并发症发生率低于其他任何技术。我们认为,对于无法进行PEG或PRG的患者,PLAG可能是首选技术,因为它安全且简便。