Compression anastomosis clip for gastrointestinal anastomosis.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility of compression anastomosis clip (CAC) for gastrointestinal anastomosis proximal to the ileocecal junction. METHODS: Sixty-six patients undergoing gastrointestinal anastomosis proximal to the ileocecal junction were randomized into two groups according to the anastomotic method, CAC or stapler. RESULTS: The postoperative recovery of patients in CAC and stapled anastomosis groups was similar. No postoperative complication related to the anastomotic method was found in either group. Both upper gastrointestinal contrast radiography at the early postoperative course and endoscopic examination after a 6-mo follow-up showed a better healing at the compression anastomosis. CONCLUSION: CAC can be used not only in colonic surgery but also in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Our result strongly suggests that CAC anastomosis is safe in various complication circumstances. However, it should be further confirmed with a larger patient sample.

[Clinical application of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/jejunostomy].

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the clinical experiences in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)/percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 578 patients who received either PEG or PEJ from July 2001 to December 2007 in our hospital. The data analyzed included the type, aim, duration, success rate, and complications of these procedures. RESULTS: Of 578 patients, 247 patients underwent PEG, 293 patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEGJ), 4 patients received percutaneous endoscopic duodenostomy (PED), 4 patients underwent direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ), 4 patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic colostomy (PEC), and 26 patients received PEG/J combined stents. These procedures were performed in different clinical conditions, including enteral nutrition (n = 329), decompression combined enteral nutrition (n = 133), decompression of the gastrointestinal tract (n = 103), enteral nutrition combined bile refeeding (n = 5), perioperative applications (n = 4), and coloclysis (n = 4). Tubes were successfully placed in 578 patients (98.0%) in an average time of (7.5 +/- 1.9) min in PEG, (17.7 +/- 4.2) min in PEGJ, (14.8 +/- 2.1) min in DPEJ, (12.3 +/- 2.5) min in PED, (11.3 +/- 2.6) min in PEC, and (30.2 +/- 5.2) min in PEG/J combined stent, respectively. No procedure-related complications were observed. Major complications were found in 6 patients (1.04%) and minor complications in 36 patients (6.23%). The duration of tube functioning was (168.37 +/- 198.64) d. CONCLUSIONS: PEG/PEJ are easy to handle, effective, safe, and convenient for nursing. The endoscopic method of tube placement can be performed at the bedside and allow for enteral feeding, gastrointestinal decompression, and internal biliary drainage to be rapidly and efficiently achieved.

[The safety and efficiency of fast track surgery in gastric cancer patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of fast track surgery (FTS) management in gastric cancer undergoing D2 gastrectomy. METHODS: Eighty gastric cancer patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy were recruited prospectively. Patients were assigned to receive FTS management (n = 40) or conventional perioperative care (n = 40). The FTS care included shorten preoperative fasting time, no nasogastric decompressing tubes and abdominal drainage placed, early postoperative oral feeding, multimodal analgesia, and early mobilisation. The length of postoperative hospital stay, medical cost, nutritional status, gut function, and postoperative complications in the two groups were recorded and compared. RESULTS: FTS group was associated with a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with conventional care group [(5.6 +/- 1.3) d vs. (9.4 +/- 1.9) d, P < 0.05]. Medical cost was less [(18 620 +/- 2360) Yuan vs. (20 370 +/- 2440) Yuan, P < 0.05] and duration of intravenous infusion [(3.5 +/- 1.4) d vs. (5.8 +/- 1.9) d, P < 0.05] was also shorter. First passage of flatus was earlier in FTS group than in conventional care group [(4.3 +/- 0.4) d vs. (5.5 +/- 0.9) d, P < 0.05]. Loss of body weight in the postoperative period was less in FTS group [(3.2 +/- 0.8) kg vs. (4.3 +/- 1.6) kg, P < 0.05]. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSION: FTS in D2 gastrectomy is safe and efficient, and it can shorten postoperative hospital stay and hasten return of gut function.