New insertion method of transnasal ileus tube for small bowel obstruction: Anterior balloon method.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is usually caused by postoperative adhesions and malignant disease, and decompression is effective for SBO. Our previous case report suggested that a new transnasal ileus tube insertion method, the anterior balloon method (ABM), could achieve decompression for adhesive SBO. AIMS: The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a new method for inserting transnasal ileus tubes in patients with SBO. METHODS: Altogether, 134 patients with small bowel obstruction treated from January 2011 to December 2017 were reviewed. The patients were categorized into two groups: those with the new method that inserts an anterior balloon (ABM group: 52 patients, 2014-2017) versus those with the ordinary insertion method (OIM group: 82 patients, 2011-2014). RESULTS: The patients' characteristics and symptoms on admission were similar in the ABM and OIM groups. Adhesions were the main cause of ileus in the two groups. The insertion time duration was significantly shorter in the ABM group than in OIM group (28.4 ± 9.1 vs. 33.5 ± 13.0 min; p = 0.01). The ABM group also had significantly longer tubes than OIM group (222.4 ± 32.2 vs. 157.4 ± 31.7 cm; p < 0.001), which resulted in a significantly shorter time until clinical symptoms were relieved in ABM group. There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ABM group had shorter insertion duration and longer tubes than those of OIM group. The ABM might become a preferred therapeutic choice to achieve decompression in patients with SBO.

Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

BACKGROUND: The present study was performed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room. METHODS: In total, 297 patients with gastrointestinal tumors who underwent ESD from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent ESD in the endoscopy room without propofol (Group E) versus operation room with propofol (Group O). The patient, tumor, and procedure characteristics; adverse events; and treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The patient and tumor characteristics, including age (73.6 ± 8.2 vs. 72.5 ± 9.1 years), comorbidities, and tumor size and histology, were not different between Groups E and O. The ESD procedure time was comparable between Groups E and O (105.4 ± 70.4 vs. 106.5 ± 64.4 min), and the anesthesia time was equivalent (138.3 ± 78.1 vs. 148.4 ± 68.8 min). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. During the ESD procedure, desaturation occurred significantly more often in Group E than O (12.9% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.021, odds ratio: 3.53, 95% CI: 1.17-14.4). The recovery time after ESD was significantly longer in Group E than O (180 (100-360) vs. 90 (0-180) min, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A decreased desaturation rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room. These findings warrant further exploration of the advantages of safe and effective ESD for upper gastrointestinal neoplasms in the operation room.