The rapid placement of jejunal feeding tubes: the Seldinger technique applied to the gut

Postpyloric Feeding Access in Infants and Children: A State of the Art Review

Achieving postpyloric feeding access is a clinical challenge faced by the pediatric gastroenterologist in everyday practice. Currently, there is limited literature published on the topic. This article provides a practical summary of the literature on the different methods utilized to achieve postpyloric feeding access including bedside, fluoroscopic, endoscopic and surgical options. Indications and complications of these methods are discussed as well as a general approach to infants and children that require intestinal feeding.

Direct endoscopic placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies with jejunal extension tubes (PEG-J) using ultra-thin endoscopes - long-term outcomes from a U.S. tertiary referral center

INTRODUCTION

Several techniques for PEG-J tube placement have been described, commonly requiring fluoroscopic guidance and/or fixation of the jejunostomy tube (J-tube) into the small intestine. We describe a modified technique for placing jejunostomy tubes under direct visualization through a PEG with the use of ultra-thin endoscopes and steel guidewire.

METHODS

A retrospective study at a single tertiary academic center evaluating patients who underwent PEG-J placement between 2010 and 2020. All PEG tubes were placed with a pull-through technique. The Olympus GIF-N180 endoscope was advanced through the PEG to the jejunum and a Savary-Gilliard guidewire was used for placement of the J-tube extension.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients underwent PEG-J placement (median age 61 years; women 52%). Surgically altered gastric anatomy was observed in 11 patients (19%). Median procedure time was 44 min for new PEG-J tube placement (range 26-103) and 20 min for placement of a J-tube extension through an existing PEG tube (range 9-86) or gastrostomy tract. Technical success rate was in 100%. Sixty-two repeat procedures were performed for J-tube exchange in 27 patients (46%, range 1-9 per patient), of which 51 procedures (82%) were done using the same technique. The most common indication for tube replacement was tube dysfunction (63%, n = 39). The median procedure time for tube exchange was 20 min (range 2-62). No major adverse events were encountered.

CONCLUSION

PEG-J tubes can be placed effectively, rapidly, and safely using an ultra-thin caliber endoscope and a stiff steel wire through the PEG tube or mature gastrostomy site, precluding the need for fluoroscopy or oral access. J-tubes can be easily replaced utilizing the same technique.

Role of Enteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer Patients: Indications and Contraindications of the Different Techniques Employed

Over the last 20 years there has been great progress regarding total parenteral nutrition and enteral nutrition for patients who cannot take food by mouth or cannot swallow, or so that controlled feeding can be established in anorexic and malnourished patients. The use and the role of artificial nutrition is still controversial in advanced cancer patients. Such controversies often are due to the fact that these patients have a survival expectancy that varies from one to several months. The present review describes the most frequent techniques used for enteral nutrition (nasoenteral tubes, gastrostomy and jejunostomy), their indications, contraindications and complications, and gives an indication regarding which patients may really benefit from enteral nutrition taking into consideration not only the potential advantages but also the discomfort and distress related to enteral nutrition and the different techniques that are employed.

Endoscopically Assisted Nasojejunal Feeding Tube Placement: Technique and Results in Five Dogs

Interest in noninvasive feeding tube placement in companion animals led to the adaption of a human technique utilizing endoscopy to place nasojejunal feeding tubes. Data from medical records in which nasojejunal feeding tubes were attempted were reviewed. Feeding tubes were attempted and successfully placed in five dogs within a median of 35 min. Feeding tubes remained in place for approximately 7 days. Complications included facial irritation (5/5), sneezing (5/5), fractured facial sutures (4/5), vomiting (3/5), diarrhea (3/5), crimping of feeding tube (3/5), regurgitation (1/5), epistaxis (1/5), clogging of the feeding tube (2/5), and oral migration with premature removal of the feeding tube (1/5). The deployment technique used in this study was found to be cumbersome. Despite minor complications, endoscopy can be used to rapidly and accurately place nasoenteric feeding devices.

Transnasal endoscopy for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: does the working length of the endoscope matter?

BACKGROUND

Transnasal endoscopy with a small-caliber endoscope has been shown to be helpful for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in patients who are critically ill. Success rates were limited by the short working length of the small-caliber endoscopes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the success rate of a 133-cm-long, small-caliber, prototype videoendoscope with a standard 92-cm-long, small-caliber, fiberoptic endoscope for the transnasal placement of feeding tubes.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled study.

SETTING

University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland.

PATIENTS

Patients who were critically ill were randomly assigned to transnasal feeding tube placement with the standard 92-cm-long, small-caliber, fiberoptic endoscope, or with a new 133-cm-long, small-caliber, prototype videoendoscope. Patient characteristics, procedure time, technical difficulties, patient tolerance, and radiologic tube position were assessed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Success rates of endoscopic placement of enteral feeding tubes.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were analyzed in 2 groups. The 2 groups were similar with regard to patient characteristics, body length, technical difficulty, and patient tolerance. The 133-cm-long instrument was superior with respect to successful placement of the nasoenteral feeding tube (93.6% vs 74.4%, P = .0008). Patient tolerance, procedure times, and overall technical difficulty were the same in both treatment groups, whereas passage through the duodenum was more difficult with the 133-cm-long instrument (P < .0001).

LIMITATIONS

In rare cases, the randomization list could not be followed correctly.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube with a 133-cm-long, small-caliber videoendoscope is feasible, safe, and distinctly more successful than with a 92-cm-long, small-caliber standard instrument.

Nasogastric feeding tube placement in patients with esophageal cancer: application of ultrathin transnasal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Patients with esophageal cancer often present with dysphagia and malnutrition. Obstructive symptoms may improve after radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Nutrition support via a nasogastric tube (NG) or gastrostomy is very important during treatment. The newly developed ultrathin endoscope (Olympus, GIF-N230, outer diameter: 6 mm) has a smaller diameter than the standard endoscope and can be introduced into the esophagus via the nasal cavity. This article reports on the use of an ultrathin endoscope for NG placement for patients with esophageal cancer who presented with dysphagia and failed traditional NG tube placement.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 40 patients with esophageal cancer were referred to our hospital from November 2001 to October 2002 for endoscopic placement of NG tubes due to failure of traditional methods of NG placement. An ultrathin endoscope was used to advance the guidewire into the stomach via the nasal cavity. After withdrawal of the scope, the NG tube was inserted over the guidewire under fluoroscopy.

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 71 procedures were performed in 40 patients (37 males, 3 females), age 57 +/- 15 years (range, 37-91 y). Seventy procedures (99%) were successful in completing NG tube placement by using an ultrathin transnasal endoscope. Only one procedure failed because the esophageal lumen was completely occluded and the guidewire was not able to be passed through the obstructed site. The average duration that the NG tube was left in place was 49 +/- 35 days (range, 2-144 days). No procedure-related complications, such as bleeding or perforation, occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Using ultrathin transnasal endoscopy to place an NG tube for esophageal cancer patients is effective and safe. It simplifies the procedures and increases the success rate.

Transnasal versus transoral endoscopy for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Nasoenteral feeding tube placement with the Seldinger technique using transoral endoscopy is a tedious procedure. This study compared the transoral approach with a new technique that uses a transnasal endoscope without the need for a mouth-to-nose wire transfer.

METHODS

Critically ill patients requiring nasoenteral feeding tube placement were randomly assigned to the transoral technique using a standard upper endoscope (n = 80) or the transnasal method using a 5.3 mm fiberscope (n = 80). Procedure time, medication requirement, technical difficulty, patient tolerance, and radiologic tube position were assessed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with regard to baseline medication, endoscopic findings, as well as overall technical difficulty and patient tolerance. The transnasal technique required less procedure time (median 8.0 versus 12.0 minutes, p < 0.001) and less relaxant medication (p = 0.029). Furthermore, it caused fewer circulatory (p = 0.040) and respiratory (p = 0.016) alterations regardless of the application of sedative or relaxant medication. The transnasal endoscope was inferior with respect to passage through the pylorus (p = 0.003) and duodenum (p = 0.020). These differences were significant in univariate hypothesis testing. Bonferroni correction for multiple testing of data removed the significance at p > 0.0031. Both techniques achieved similar rates of successful tube placement in the small bowel (86% versus 84%, p = 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Transnasal endoscopy allows accurate placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients and is superior to transoral endoscopy in terms of procedure time, medication requirement, and safety.

Endoscopically guided placement of nasogastric tubes in patients with esophageal carcinoma with absolute dysphagia: report of a 3-year experience

Esophageal cancer often leads to total or near-total dysphagia, necessitating placement of nasogastric tubes for nutritional support. In patients with failed blind intubation or even failed fluoroscopic-guided tube placement, endoscopic guidance has a role to play. The catheter-over-guidewire technique is simple, safe, and easy to use. Over a period of 3 years, it was used in 28 patients who had esophageal cancer with absolute dysphagia. Successful placement of Levin tubes was achieved in 21 (75%) of these patients. Failure was more common in upper third lesions. The procedure was done on an outpatient basis, and no procedure-related complications were recorded in this series. To summarize, endoscopically assisted nasogastric tube placement is a useful option in esophageal cancer when blind intubation has failed, and it should be considered in preference to fluoroscopic assistance if endoscopic facilities are available.

A simple technique for insertion of PEJ via PEG

Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy provides good access for enteral nutrition in those patients at high risk for aspiration and poor tolerance of gastric feeding. Positioning the jejunostomy tube through the PEG tube and into the duodenum can be difficult and time consuming. We describe a simple method for gaining rapid control of the jejunal tube and its duodenal insertion.

Endoscopic intervention for enteral access

Contrary to total parenteral nutrition with its relatively recent introduction into modern clinical medicine, enteral nutrition has a long and colorful history. Prior to development of fiberoptic endoscopy, physicians attempting to feed patients who could not or would not eat were limited to the blind placement of intestinal tubes or radiologically assisted placement of these devices. Previous to these modern attempts, the use of nutrient enemas was attempted for which there was evidence of occasional success. With the introduction of fiberoptic flexible endoscopy, guidance of tubes into the upper intestinal tract under direct vision became feasible. The manner in which tubes were positioned, advanced, or manipulated are myriad and attest to the ingenuity of clinicians. A revolution in endoscopic intervention occurred with the introduction of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in 1980. This provided secure access to the stomach without a laparotomy. This technique was also modified to allow decompression of the stomach with feeding distally into the small intestine and also direct puncture and placement of tubes into the small intestine. The most recent advance in enteral nutrition is taking place at the present time with the introduction of laparoscopic techniques in the creation of gastrostomies and jejunostomies.