Suppr超能文献

[德国胃肠病学、消化与代谢疾病学会(DGVS)关于急性肠梗阻内镜减压的立场声明]

[German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) position statement on endoscopic decompression in acute Ileus].

作者信息

Götz Martin, Braun Georg, Jakobs Ralf, Messmann Helmut, Stange Eduard F, Lerch Markus M

机构信息

Innere Medizin 1, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen.

III. Medizinischen Klinik, Klinikum Augsburg.

出版信息

Z Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;55(12):1499-1508. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-120351. Epub 2017 Dec 6.

Abstract

In patients with ileus with dilated intestine in imaging studies, endoscopic decompression appears a feasible option. However, its use is often uncritical and without scientific evidence. Before considering endoscopic intervention, CT-imaging should differentiate between mechanical obstruction and paralytic ileus/intestinal pseudo-obstruction. Tumor diagnosis and localisation are essential because the latter determines the choice of the decompression procedure. Coecal dilatation of more than 12 cm indicates an increased risk of perforation. In patients with toxic megacolon, dilation of the transverse colon to more than 6 cm is considered critical without much prospective evidence. Endoscopic decompression has a high complication rate and should be performed electively, and not as an emergency procedure, whenever possible. The use of CO insufflation rather than ambient air is strongly recommended, as is the availability of fluoroscopy. Prior trans-nasal or oral decompression-tube placement is routinely performed, and tracheobronchial intubation frequently required. In over 90 % of patients with pseudo-obstruction, conservative treatment is successful within 24 to 48 hours, and endoscopic decompression is, therefore, unnecessary. Placement of self-expanding metal stents to decompress a tumor stenosis is considered mostly for the left colon and rectum and burdened with significant risks of perforation and stent migration. Stent impact on oncological outcome is controversial because of possible tumor cell mobilization and increased postoperative cancer recurrence rates. Surgery, as primary intervention, achieves its objective in most cases. Decompression effect by endoscopic suctioning of gas and intestinal fluid is usually transient so that it is combined with transrectal decompression tubes insertion. This paper reviews the advantages and flaws of various decompression procedures in different clinical settings.

摘要

在影像学检查中出现肠扩张的肠梗阻患者中,内镜减压似乎是一种可行的选择。然而,其使用往往缺乏审慎性且没有科学依据。在考虑内镜干预之前,CT成像应区分机械性梗阻和麻痹性肠梗阻/假性肠梗阻。肿瘤诊断和定位至关重要,因为后者决定减压程序的选择。盲肠扩张超过12厘米表明穿孔风险增加。在中毒性巨结肠患者中,横结肠扩张超过6厘米被认为是危急情况,但前瞻性证据不多。内镜减压并发症发生率高,应尽可能择期进行,而非作为急诊手术。强烈建议使用二氧化碳充气而非空气,并配备荧光透视设备。常规进行经鼻或经口放置减压管,且经常需要气管插管。在超过90%的假性肠梗阻患者中,保守治疗在24至48小时内成功,因此无需内镜减压。放置自膨式金属支架以解除肿瘤狭窄主要考虑用于左结肠和直肠,且存在穿孔和支架移位的重大风险。由于可能导致肿瘤细胞移动和术后癌症复发率增加,支架对肿瘤学结局的影响存在争议。手术作为主要干预措施,在大多数情况下能达到目的。内镜抽吸气体和肠液的减压效果通常是短暂的,因此常与经直肠插入减压管相结合。本文综述了不同临床情况下各种减压程序的优缺点。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验