[Surgical access routes in enteral nutrition]

Laparoscopic Janeway gastrostomy as preferred enteral access in specific patient populations: A systematic review and case series

BACKGROUND

Nutrition is one of the fundamental needs of both patient and non-patient populations. General trends promote enteral feeding as a superior route, with the most common enteral access being the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) as the first-line procedure, with surgical access including Witzel gastrostomy, Stamm Gastrostomy, Janeway gastrostomy (JG) as secondary means.

AIM

To describe cases and technique of laparoscopic Janeway gastrostomy (LJG) and perform a systematic review of the data.

METHODS

We successfully performed two LJG procedures, after which we conducted a literature review of all documented cases of LJG from 1991 to 2022. We surveyed these cases to show the efficacy of LJG and provide comparisons to other existing procedures with primary outcomes of operative time, complications, duration of gastrostomy use, and application settings. The data were then extracted and assessed on the basis of the Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/).

RESULTS

We presented two cases of LJG, detailing the simplicity and benefits of this technique. We subsequently identified 26 articles and 56 cases of LJG and extrapolated the data relating to our outcome measures. We could show the potential of LJG as a viable and preferred option in certain patient populations requiring enteral access, drawing reference to its favorable outcome profile and low complication rate.

CONCLUSION

The LJG is a simple, reproducible procedure with a favorable complication profile. By its technical ease and benefits relating to the gastric tube formed, we propose this procedure as a viable, favorable enteral access in patients with the need for permanent or palliative gastrostomy, those with neurologic disease, agitation or at high risk of gastrostomy dislodgement, or where PEG may be infeasible.

Enteral feeding via jejunostomy as a cause of intestinal perforation and necrosis

Jejunostomy for enteral feeding is excellent for patients who cannot manage oral intake, with a low complication rate. A Foley catheter, Ryle tube, Kerh tube or needle-catheter (Jejuno-Cath®) are commonly used. It is a safe procedure but it can lead to severe complications. We present two cases: firstly, an 80 year old male who was admitted to the Emergency Room with a bowel perforation secondary to Jejuno-Cath® for enteral feeding after a subtotal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction; and secondly, a 53 year old male who was admitted to the Emergency Room due to gastric perforation developing multiple complications, including bowel necrosis and enteral feeding impaction. We have reviewed the recent literature with regard to this rare complication.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

BACKGROUND

A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.

Early enteral nutrition and short-term fasting about monitored anesthesia care during endoscopic surgery in lower urinary tract

AIM: To evaluate safety of early enteral nutrition and short-term fasting about monitored anesthesia care (MAC) during endoscopy surgery in lower urinary system.

METHODS: Forty-six patients received MAC (> 1 h) while 50 cases underwent traditional lumbar anesthesia (LA, > 4 h). The ketone body and glucose in blood was detected before MAC and LA. The rate of respiration and heartbeat was recorded during operation. One hour after operation, all the cases started to take food, and gastrointestinal reactions were observed.

RESULTS: In MAC group, the levels of blood glucose and ketone body, the rates of respiration and heartbeat were 5.3467 ± 0.9762 mmol/L, 1.1933 ± 0.4876 mmol/L, 19.73 ± 2.02/min and 76.8 ± 19.6/min, respectively. Gastrointestinal reactions occurred in 6 (13%) cases. However, in LA group, the levels of blood glucose and ketone body, the rates of respiration and heartbeat were 4.8765 ± 1.2390 mmol/L, 1.5681 ± 1.0368 mmol/L, 20.53 ± 3.26/min and 80.2 ± 21.4/min, respectively. Gastrointestinal reactions were found in 36 (72%) cases. The levels of blood glucose and ketone body were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05), but the rates of respiration and heartbeat were not (P > 0.05). The rate of gastrointestinal reactions also had marked difference between the two groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Early enteral nutrition and short-term fasting about MAC during endoscopic surgery in lower urinary system are safe and feasible.

Knot formation in the feeding jejunostomy tube: A case report and review of the literature

Jejunostomy feeding tubes provide surgeons with an excellent method for providing nutritional support, but there are several complications associated with a tube jejunostomy, including complications resulting from placement of the tube, mechanical problems related to the location or function and development of focally thickened small-bowel folds. A 76-year old man who presented with multiple medical diseases was admitted to our hospital due to aspiration pneumonia with acute respiratory failure and septic shock. He underwent exploratory laparotomy with feeding jejunostomy using a 14-French nasogastric tube for nutritional support. However, occlusion of the feeding tube was found 30 d after operation, and a rare complication of knot formation in the tube occurred after a new tube was replaced. On the following day, the tube was removed and replaced with a similar tube, which was placed into the jejunum for only 15 cm. The patient’s feedings were maintained smoothly for two months. Knot formation in the feeding tube seems to be very rare. To our knowledge, this is the third case in the literature review. Its incidence is probably related to the length of the tube inserted into the lumen.