【摘要】目的探讨在数字减影 (DSA)透视下,经过鼻腔将胃管、空肠营养管联合置入及其临床应用的范围和价值。方法选择2007年8月23日2009年10月22日期间35例需要行肠内营养的患者,在DSA透视下经鼻腔将胃管以及预先套入的空肠营养管联合置入,置管成功后分别造影,显示胃管位于胃内,而空肠营养管末端位于空肠内。结果35例患者成功置管。置管时间为49～186 min,平均108 min。置管中及置管后未发生严重并发症。置管后营养管在位良好,喂养过程顺利。结论DSA透视下经鼻胃管、空肠营养管联合置入是一种安全、经济、有效的肠内营养途径,同时解决了胃液引流问题,具有一定的临床应用价值。
ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility of CORFLO feeding tube in enternal nutrition after video-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for esophageal cancer and cardiac adenocarcinoma. MethodsA total of 107 patients with esophageal cancer and cardiac adenocarcinoma undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy or resection of cardiac adenocarcinoma in our department between October 2014 and January 2016 were enrolled, among whom 10 patients received jejunostomy and 97 patients (60 males, 37 females, median age of 66 years, range, 47-75 years) received the insertion of CORFLO feeding tubes. ResultsIn 97 cases with insertion of feeding tubes, median insertion time was 7 (3-11) min and median depth was 83 (75-90) cm. The first-attempt success rate during the operation was 77.3% (75/97), and the second attempt at the bedside postoperatively was successful in 8 cases. The overall success rate was 85.6% (83/97). Insertion was successful in 77 esophageal cancer patients and 6 cardiac adenocarcinoma patients. Conclusion Blind insertion of CORFLO feeding tube in video-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for esophageal cancer and cardiac adenocarcinoma is feasible and safe. This noninvasive method is simple, effective and repeatable.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal tube for enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and CBM databases were searched to collect the clinical effects of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal nutrition tube after radical resection of esophageal cancer from inception to October 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsTwenty-six articles were included, including 17 randomized controlled studies and 9 cohort studies, with a total of 35 808 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that: in the jejunostomy tube group, the postoperative exhaust time (MD=–4.27, 95%CI –5.87 to –2.66, P=0.001), the incidence of pulmonary infection (OR=1.39, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.82, P=0.02), incidence of tube removal (OR=0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.30, P=0.001), incidence of tube blockage (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, P=0.04), incidence of nasopharyngeal discomfort (OR=0.04, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.13, P=0.001), the incidence of nasopharyngeal mucosal damage (OR=0.13, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.42, P=0.008), the incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.47, P=0.003) were significantly shorter or lower than those of the nasojejunal tube group. The postoperative serum albumin level (MD=5.75, 95%CI 5.34 to 6.16, P=0.001) was significantly better than that of the nasojejunal tube group. However, the intraoperative operation time of the jejunostomy tube group (MD=13.65, 95%CI 2.32 to 24.98, P=0.02) and the indent time of the postoperative nutrition tube (MD=17.81, 95%CI 12.71 to 22.91, P=0.001) were longer than those of the nasojejunal nutrition tube. At the same time, the incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction (OR=6.08, 95%CI 2.55 to 14.50, P=0.001) was significantly higher than that of the nasojejunal tube group. There were no statistical differences in the length of postoperative hospital stay or the occurrence of anastomotic fistula between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionIn the process of enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer, jejunostomy tube has better clinical treatment effect and is more comfortable during catheterization, but the incidence of intestinal obstruction is higher than that of traditional nasojejunal tube.