Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2003
Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy: a case series.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramage Jack I, Baron Todd H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are few reports of percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy in adult patients.
METHODS: All cases of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (n = 2) and neurogenic bowel (n = 3) in adults in which percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy was performed were reviewed retrospectively.
OBSERVATIONS: Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy was a definitive treatment. In 1 of the 2 patients with acute colonic pseudo-obstruction, the percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy tube was clamped and subsequently removed 10 weeks after placement; in the other patient with acute colonic pseudo-obstruction, the percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy tube remains in place. In 2 of the 3 patients with neurogenic bowel, the percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy tube continues to function well; the third patient did well for 6 months and then died of underlying comorbid disease. There was no mortality or need for surgical intervention for any patient. Complications occurred in 2 patients; 1 developed transient fever and leukocytosis and 1 had self-limited bleeding during anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy is a safe and effective treatment for both acute colonic pseudo-obstruction and neurogenic bowel when aggressive albeit conservative treatment is unsuccessful.
METHODS: All cases of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (n = 2) and neurogenic bowel (n = 3) in adults in which percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy was performed were reviewed retrospectively.
OBSERVATIONS: Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy was a definitive treatment. In 1 of the 2 patients with acute colonic pseudo-obstruction, the percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy tube was clamped and subsequently removed 10 weeks after placement; in the other patient with acute colonic pseudo-obstruction, the percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy tube remains in place. In 2 of the 3 patients with neurogenic bowel, the percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy tube continues to function well; the third patient did well for 6 months and then died of underlying comorbid disease. There was no mortality or need for surgical intervention for any patient. Complications occurred in 2 patients; 1 developed transient fever and leukocytosis and 1 had self-limited bleeding during anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy is a safe and effective treatment for both acute colonic pseudo-obstruction and neurogenic bowel when aggressive albeit conservative treatment is unsuccessful.