Seeding of Gastrostomy Tube Site in Patient With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Tongue: A Case Report

Concordance between indirect fibrosis and steatosis indices and their predictors in subjects with overweight/obesity

BACKGROUND

The non-invasive assessment of steatosis/fibrosis tried to overcome some of peri-procedural risk of liver biopsy; for this, several indices of steatosis and fibrosis in liver have been proposed.

AIM

To evaluate concordance of non-invasive fibrosis and steatosis indices in a large population of adult subjects at risk of NAFLD, and how obesity and its physio-pathological features may interact with steatosis/fibrosis indexes and related biomarkers of cardio-metabolic risk.

METHODS

Indices of steatosis (fatty liver index-FLI), NAFLD liver fat score-NLFS)) and fibrosis (Fibrosis 4 (FIB-4), BARD, BAAT and FORN) were calculated in 1145 outpatients with overweight or obesity at risk for T2D and NAFLD. Indices were correlated with clinical variables.

RESULTS

Concordance between tests occurred in 81% of the overall values between FLI and NLFS, but was lower when comparing the other fibrosis scores (FIB-4 vs FORN 72%, FIB-4 vs BARD 36%, BARD vs FORN 46%, BARD vs BAAT 58%, FIB-4 vs BAAT 46%, BAAT vs FORN 62%). Each index was differently correlated with anthropometric, clinical and laboratory variables.

CONCLUSION

Indices evaluated retain low concordance, clinicians should be aware of these differences between steatosis/fibrosis scores when expressing a differential liver disease diagnosis or assessing the progression of a known liver disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, descriptive research.

Gastroenterologist's Guide to Gastrostomies

Gastroenterologists are frequently consulted for evaluation feeding tube placement, or for management of complications in an existing feeding tube. Though a frequent topic of consultation for GI Fellows, there are few comprehensive resources for feeding tube placement and troubleshooting available. In this review, we discuss different types of feeding tubes, when each should be considered, and various methods and techniques for placement. Considerations for when one type, method, technique, or specialty may be preferred over the other will be discussed. Additionally, we discuss management of the many complications of indwelling feeding tubes. Our goal is to create a comprehensive review for gastroenterologists to cover clinically relevant questions related to feeding tube placement and management.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: Indications and techniques

Nutritional support is essential in patients who have a limited capability to maintain their body weight. Therefore, oral feeding is the main approach for such patients. When physiological nutrition is not possible, positioning of a nasogastric, nasojejunal tube, or other percutaneous devices may be feasible alternatives. Creating a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a suitable option to be evaluated for patients that need nutritional support for more than 4 wk. Many diseases require nutritional support by PEG, with neurological, oncological, and catabolic diseases being the most common. PEG can be performed endoscopically by various techniques, radiologically or surgically, with different outcomes and related adverse events (AEs). Moreover, some patients that need a PEG placement are fragile and are unable to express their will or sign a written informed consent. These conditions highlight many ethical problems that become difficult to manage as treatment progresses. The aim of this manuscript is to review all current endoscopic techniques for percutaneous access, their indications, postprocedural follow-up, and AEs.

Prevention and management of major complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a commonly used endoscopic technique where a tube is placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer fluids, drugs and/or enteral nutrition. Several placement techniques are described in the literature with the ‘pull’ technique (Ponsky-Gardener) as the most popular one. Independent of the method used, placement includes a ‘blind’ perforation of the stomach through a small acute surgical abdominal wound. It is a generally safe technique with only few major complications. Nevertheless these complications can be sometimes life-threatening or generate serious morbidity.

Method

A narrative review of the literature of major complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Results

This review was written from a clinical viewpoint focusing on prevention and management of major complications and documented scientific evidence with real cases from more than 20 years of clinical practice.

Conclusions

Major complications are rare but prevention, early recognition and popper management are important.