Optimal management of gastrojejunal tube in the ENFit era - Interventions that changed practice.

BACKGROUND: We experienced a high incidence of jejunal tube (JEJ) displacement in children who underwent percutaneous endoscopic transgastric jejunostomy (PEGJ), ever since the introduction of ENFit connector (2017). METHODS: Two interventions were introduced in 2018 - fixative suture to PEGJ ENFit connector, and conversion to balloon transgastric-jejunal feeding device (Balloon GJ) whenever possible. Children receiving PEGJ and Balloon GJ in 2.8 years were categorized into 3 eras: 2016 (pre-ENFit), 2017 (ENFit) and 2018 (interventional), for comparison of complications and sequelae. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank test (P < 0.05) were applied. RESULTS: 100 children underwent 323 JEJ insertions - PEGJ (n = 237), Balloon GJ (n = 86). Complications occurred in 188 JEJs (58%), more frequently with PEGJ than Balloon GJ (69% vs. 29%, P < 0.0005). PEGJ had higher complication/1000-tube-days (6 vs. 0, P < 0.0005). In 2018, complication rate reduced from 76% to 30% (P < 0.0005) owing to effectiveness of PEGJ connector suture application (P = 0.019), and increased utilization of Balloon GJ (16% to 44%, P = 0.005). Balloon GJ showed better JEJ survival (P = 0.019), less morbidity (emergency attendance, X-ray) and greater cost-effectiveness than PEGJ. CONCLUSIONS: Balloon GJ had better overall outcomes than PEGJ. Suture application to connector successfully reduced JEJ internal displacement in PEGJ; however, conversion to Balloon GJ should be strongly considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Treatment of megarectum in anorectal malformation with emphasis on preventive aspects: 17 years experience.

PURPOSE: Megarectum in anorectal malformation (ARM) causes severe morbidity. To compare conservative management (CM) of megarectum with excision (EX), to propose a new classification and to analyse management strategies. METHODS: Between 2000-2016, we reviewed all ARM to identify megarectum, defined by radiological recto-pelvic ratio > 0.61. A new classification was proposed: primary megarectum (PM) pre-anorectoplasty, and secondary megarectum (SM) post-anorectoplasty, with sub-types. Complications and Krickenbeck bowel function were compared between CM and EX. RESULTS: Of 124 ARM, 22 (18%) developed megarectum; of these, 7 underwent EX. There was no difference in functional outcomes when comparing CM vs EX-voluntary bowel movement (both 86%), soiling (40% vs. 57%) and constipation (both 86%). However, EX was associated with major complications (43%) and the requirement for invasive bowel management, compared to CM (85% vs. 27%, P = 0.02). 6/7 EX needed antegrade continence enema (ACE), one of these has a permanent ileostomy. With strategic changes, incidence of megarectum reduced from 20/77 (26%) to 2/47 (4%) after 2013 (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: EX did not confer benefit in the functional outcome but carried a high risk of complications, often needing ACE or stoma. By adhering to strategies discussed, we reduced the incidence of megarectum and have avoided EX since 2013.