Thoracic cancer · 2015
Alternative method for jejunostomy in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Gong Liqun, Yan Bo, Chen Yulong, Wang Meng, Zhang Qiang, Hui Chen, Wang Changli
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To supplement nutrition, jejunostomy has been widely adopted as an adjunct surgical procedure for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Most Chinese surgeons have a preference for parenteral nutrition even though it has some disadvantages compared with jejunostomy. In this report, we describe a new approach that allows the quick insertion of a feeding tube in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. We retrospectively analyze cases that have applied this approach and compare the advantages and disadvantages of jejunostomy.
METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2012, 131 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our hospital. These patients were divided into three groups: the total parenteral nutrition (PN) group, the jejunostomy (JT) group and the feeding tube (FT) group. The effect and safety of the procedure were compared.
RESULTS: It took approximately 20 minutes longer to perform jejunostomy compared to placing a feeding tube (P < 0.05). The nutrition cost of the JT group was higher than the FT group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the FT and JT groups (P > 0.05) in the ratio of body weight loss seven days post-surgery. The anal exsufflation time of the FT group was similar to the JT group (P > 0.05). The incidence of intestinal adhesion and obstruction in the JT group was 26.3%, which is much higher than in the FT and PN groups (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Placing the feeding tube after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy can decrease operative damage and bring sufficient nutrition. We believe it can be an alternative to jejunostomy in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2012, 131 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our hospital. These patients were divided into three groups: the total parenteral nutrition (PN) group, the jejunostomy (JT) group and the feeding tube (FT) group. The effect and safety of the procedure were compared.
RESULTS: It took approximately 20 minutes longer to perform jejunostomy compared to placing a feeding tube (P < 0.05). The nutrition cost of the JT group was higher than the FT group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the FT and JT groups (P > 0.05) in the ratio of body weight loss seven days post-surgery. The anal exsufflation time of the FT group was similar to the JT group (P > 0.05). The incidence of intestinal adhesion and obstruction in the JT group was 26.3%, which is much higher than in the FT and PN groups (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Placing the feeding tube after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy can decrease operative damage and bring sufficient nutrition. We believe it can be an alternative to jejunostomy in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.