Medicine · 2016
Portable disposable ultrathin endoscopy tested through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Baeg Myong Ki, Lim Chul-Hyun, Kim Jin Su, Cho Yu Kyung, Park Jae Myung, Lee Bo-In, Lee In-Seok, Choi Myung-Gyu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A portable disposable ultrathin endoscope (DUE) with high visual quality and maneuverability would reduce the need for expensive facilities and emergency endoscopy could be available anywhere. It would increase patient satisfaction, prevent unnecessary sedation, and reduce infection. Our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of portable DUE in performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent PEG under DUE guidance and compared them with historical controls who underwent PEG under conventional ultrathin endoscopy (CUE) guidance. The primary outcomes were successful stomach visualization and PEG tube insertion.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (19 male) were enrolled and compared with 25 gender and indication-matched controls. The most common indications for PEG were aspiration due to stroke or brain injury, dementia, and head and neck cancer. Entrance into the stomach was achieved in 92.0% (23/25) and 96% (24/25) in the DUE and CUE groups, and PEG was performed in 91.3% (21/23) and 95.8% (23/24), respectively. The mean insertion time for the DUE and CUE groups were 22.7 ± 9.3 minutes and 17.1 ± 5.7 minutes (P = 0.044). The 3 cases of failure to reach the stomach in both groups were caused by esophageal blockage. The 3 cases of failed PEG tube insertion were caused by poor visualization of the insertion site. Bleeding and pneumoperitoneum occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the DUE group. One case of fever was noted in the CUE group. All adverse events were conservatively managed.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that portable DUE in facilities without endoscopy equipment may be clinically feasible.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent PEG under DUE guidance and compared them with historical controls who underwent PEG under conventional ultrathin endoscopy (CUE) guidance. The primary outcomes were successful stomach visualization and PEG tube insertion.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (19 male) were enrolled and compared with 25 gender and indication-matched controls. The most common indications for PEG were aspiration due to stroke or brain injury, dementia, and head and neck cancer. Entrance into the stomach was achieved in 92.0% (23/25) and 96% (24/25) in the DUE and CUE groups, and PEG was performed in 91.3% (21/23) and 95.8% (23/24), respectively. The mean insertion time for the DUE and CUE groups were 22.7 ± 9.3 minutes and 17.1 ± 5.7 minutes (P = 0.044). The 3 cases of failure to reach the stomach in both groups were caused by esophageal blockage. The 3 cases of failed PEG tube insertion were caused by poor visualization of the insertion site. Bleeding and pneumoperitoneum occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the DUE group. One case of fever was noted in the CUE group. All adverse events were conservatively managed.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that portable DUE in facilities without endoscopy equipment may be clinically feasible.