Cargando…
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 f...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6248956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30462677 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207099 |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|