Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1100_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
108 S. P. Gangadharan
Technique for Placement
Open Surgical Jejunostomy Tubes
The history of the development of jejunal access spans over 150 years with Bush in 1858 who cre­ated a jejunostomy for feeding in a patient with unresectable gastric cancer [10]. The use of a tube placed directly into the jejunum for feed­ing dates back to 1878 and Surmay de Havre. Further surgical technical modification is most notable for Witzel’s description in 1891 of the imbrication of bowel longitudinally over the tube [11]. In 1973, Delany described the technique of needle catheter jejunostomy, utilizing a thinner catheter and a subserosal tunnel [12]. With the advent of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, technical modifications were soon made to allow both transgastric jejunal tube placement and di­rect percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement [1315]. As laparoscopy became es­tablished in the early 1990s, this technique was adopted for jejunostomy tube placement [1619]. Radiologists have since developed a technique for direct percutaneous access of the jejunum without endoscopic guidance [20].
A standard surgical jejunostomy tube may be accomplished via three different techniques: Stamm jejunostomy, Witzel jejunostomy, or needle catheter jejunostomy [11]. The location for placement is similar in all cases, usually be­tween 20 and 30 cm from the ligament of Treitz. Orientation of the jejunum is assured so that the tube will eventually pass in an antegrade direc­tion so as to avoid the reflux of tube feeds into the stomach or esophagus. Latex or silicone rub­ber catheters have been used for these feeding tubes, with sizes ranging from 8 to 18 Fr, gener­ally. A Witzel jejunostomy is created by placing a purse-string suture in partial-thickness fashion on the antimesenteric aspect of the jejunum. An enterotomy is created in the middle of the purse string, and the tube is directed into the lumen, and the suture is tied without occluding the tube lumen, but snugly enough to avoid leakage. A
“Witzel tunnel” is then created by imbricating the seromuscular jejunal wall over the tube with interrupted sutures. This is done retrograde from the initial enterotomy over a distance of 3–4 cm. The tube is externalized through the abdominal wall and the jejunum is tacked to the peritoneum broadly to avoid volvulus. The jejunostomy tube is also secured to the skin with an additional su­ture or commercially available wafer-style tube holder. Additional modifications of the technique include the use of Foley catheters with the bal­loon inflated or T-tubes, both of which allow the bowel to be pulled flush against the peritoneum by slight traction on the tube, similar to the tech­nique utilized for percutaneous endoscopic gas­trostomy tubes.
The needle catheter jejunostomy is classically performed by passing a 14G needle in an subse­rosal fashion for ~ 5 cm before entering the jeju­nal lumen [21]. A 16G catheter is then threaded through the needle and passed distally within the lumen of the bowel for 25 cm. Similarly to the Witzel jejunostomy, the external site of tube entry into the antimesenteric jejunum is then tacked to the peritoneum, and the tube is then externalized through the abdominal wall and secured.
The Stamm jejunostomy utilizes two concen­tric purse-string sutures to seal the jejunal an­timesenteric entry site around the tube. No tunnel is created.
Laparoscopic Jejunostomy Tubes
Laparoscopic jejunostomy tube placement may be accomplished via similar technique to open surgery [1619]. Commercially available kits may be utilized to assist in the passing of the catheter through the abdominal wall (peel-away sheaths) or to facilitate tacking of the jejunum to the peritoneum (T-shape fasteners), though stan­dard suturing and instrumentation allow the same solutions to be achieved [22]. The laparoscopic working ports are in the right mid- and upper ab­domen, with an umbilical port being used for the camera.
10911 Jejunal Feeding Tube Complications
Complications
Overall, the complication rates for feeding jeju­nostomy placed at the time of elective surgery have been reported to be as high as 45 % [9, 23
27]. However, significant complications appear
to be a much more event. In a large series of over 1100 patients undergoing needle catheter jeju­nostomy at the completion of esophagectomy, the rate of complication leading to repeat laparotomy was only 1.1 % [25].
Bowel Necrosis
Diarrhea, nausea, crampy abdominal pain, and distention, accompanied by high nasogastric tube outputs, may occur in about 40 % of pa­tients fed by jejunostomy[28]. However, despite these common potentially alarming signs and symptoms, small bowel necrosis is thought only to occur in between 0.14 and 3.5 % of patients [29]. The diagnosis does carry a very high rate of mortality [30]. The true etiology of small bowel necrosis in the setting of jejunal tube feeding is
not entirely clear, but it does occur in a patchy distribution similar to necrotizing enterocolitis found in neonates, and segments of bowel which are not exposed to the flow of tube feeds appear to be spared [31].
If suspicion for this complication exists, com­puted tomography may suggest bowel ischemia or perforation, but a surgical re-exploration is often the incisive and timely way to diagnose and then remediate the problem. Bowel resection, bowel rest, and resiting or removal of the tube all may be necessary.
Pneumatosis intestinalis also, has been report­ed in patients with jejunostomy tubes [32, 33]. (Fig. 11.1) However, not all pneumatosis intes­tinalis is necessarily a sign of necrosis or other significant morbidity, especially when inciden­tally detected radiographically. In the absence of bloody diarrhea, acute abdomen, obstruction, portal venous gas, or other signs and symptoms of bowel ischemia, it may be possible to sim­ply observe patients with pneumatosis closely [3437]. Data regarding the mechanism of for­mation of benign pneumatosis in patients with jejunostomy tubes are scant. It is theorized that
Fig. 11.1 Benign pneumatosis intestinalis around a jeju- nostomy tube. a and b Abdominal CT scan (soft tissue and lung windows); arrow points to loop of jejunum with
pneumatosis (jejunostomy tube in that bowel loop is not visualized on these images). c and d Five days later the degree of pneumatosis has decreased considerably
110 S. P. Gangadharan
a mechanical breach in the mucosa from the tube coupled with increased intraluminal gas/pressure from fermentation, ileus, or hypoosmolar feeds is responsible for the air [38, 39].
Bowel Obstruction
While ileus may result from any intraabdomi­nal operation, bowel obstruction is a complica­tion that may require more aggressive interven­tion or reoperation. The entry site of the feeding tube into the bowel lumen is a potential site of obstruction. A Witzel jejunostomy that gathers up too much seromuscular tunnel will result in decreased cross-sectional area at that site. Tube feeding may be tolerated, as the tip of the tube is distal to the site of bowel narrowing, but the patient may have vomiting, conduit distention, or increased nasogastric tube output as the bowel transit upstream of the Witzel tunnel is impeded. A recent report on 153 patients who underwent a Witzel jejunostomy tube noted a 7 % incidence of bowel obstruction [40]. However, this publica­tion suffers from a lack of definition of obstruc­tion, and no mention was made of whether these patients necessitated intervention beyond bowel rest for this condition. In addition, it is unclear what the duration of follow-up is. Far more prev­alent in the literature are reports that detail mini­mal or no episodes of bowel obstruction in the short-term, which reflects avoidance of technical
error during the placement of the feeding tube [9,
41, 42].
Volvulus around the jejunostomy tube or through an internal hernia has been described as etiologies of bowel obstruction [43, 44] (Fig. 11.2). Despite the single-tacking site of per­cutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy or direct per­cutaneous jejunostomy tubes placed with fluoro­scopic or ultrasound guidance, the reporting of volvulus with those techniques is still quite rare [4547]. Other obstructive events include ob­struction from the catheter balloon, which may be obviated by choice of tube or avoidance of balloon over-inflation [48]. Intussusception at the site of direct percutaneous endoscopic jeju­nostomy tubes has been described by multiple groups [4951]. Despite the usual technique of multiple tacking sites with a Witzel jejunostomy tube, it has been described with that technique as well [52].
In cases of obstruction, an exploratory lapa­rotomy or laparoscopy may be employed. A par­tial obstruction may be observed at times. Edema at the Witzel tunnel may reduce in time with conservative measures and allow free passage of enteric contents. If there is a balloon catheter responsible for the obstruction, this may be diag­nosed with contrast studies or simple examina­tion of the tube and balloon apparatus and reme­diated by balloon deflation.
Fig. 11.2 Small bowel obstruction secondary to internal herniation and volvulus around jejunostomy tube site. a Abdominal CT depicting dilated loops of small bowel ( white arrow) as well as a decompressed loop of small
bowel tacking along the previous jejunostomy tube site ( black arrow). b Decompressed small bowel in the right lower quadrant; dilated loop of small bowel in the left lower quadrant
11111 Jejunal Feeding Tube Complications
Tube Dysfunction
Overall rates of tube dysfunction have been re­ported as high as 45 % in a mixed series of gas­trostomy and jejunostomy tubes. These compli­cations—clogging, knotting of the tube [53], dis­lodgement, or breakage of the connectors—may be considered minor; however, they may lead to the interruption of nutrition delivery or addi­tional invasive procedures. Clogging of the tube is a very common problem, reported in 0.5–6 % of prospectively collected series of patients un­dergoing a Witzel jejunostomy tube at the time of esophagectomy or gastric surgery [41, 54]. Needle catheter jejunostomy has been reported to have similar propensity for clogging as Witzel jejunostomy [55]. Best practices for feeding tube maintenance include adherence to a flushing reg­imen and avoidance of introducing any solid ma­terial into the tube (e.g., crushed pills). In addi­tion, checking of residuals via a jejunostomy tube is not recommended, both due to technical limita­tions and inaccuracy of the measurement and due to concerns that this might hasten clogging. Meat tenderizer, pancreatic enzymes, and soda have all been utilized to help dissolve the inspissated tube feed substance from clogged jejunostomy tubes [56]. Of these agents, pancreatic enzyme appears to have the greatest efficacy in resolving the ob­struction, with 96 one series [57]. Some researchers have suggested that a pancreatic enzyme “lock” similar to a hep­arin lock for vascular catheters may be utilized as prophylaxis against inspissated tube feeds ob­structing the feeding tube [58]. The mechanical remedy for a clogged tube is steady or oscillating pressure via a syringe filled with saline or water. Reconstitution of patency has also been achieved with a vascular embolectomy catheter [59]. Of note, in the series quoted above with a 6 dence of tube obstruction, all feeding tubes were able to be out need for replacement of the tube [41].
Similar to any externalized tube or drain, je­junostomy tubes are subject to dislodgement. While this data point may be under-reported in
% restoration of tube patency
% inci-
recanalized with local measures, with-
in
the largely retrospective reviews of jejunostomy tube complication (as simple replacement of the tube may occur without any documentation), a prospective trial of nasoduodenal tubes versus je­junostomy tubes reported a 6 % incidence of tube dislodgement [7]. Dislodgement of jejunostomy tubes that required a reoperation to address the problem occurred in 1.2 % of patients in another series [54]. In one particularly notable case re­port, a patient with a jejunostomy tube that had been placed for enteral access in the setting of unresectable gastric cancer presented with “dis­appearance of the tube and abdominal pain” and was found to have the entirety of the tube within the bowel [60]. Peristalsis eventually allowed the tube to pass per rectum without any surgical in­tervention.
For chronically indwelling surgically placed
tubes, the tract may not close completely for
days, though the
2–3
optimal timing for direct replacement of a jejunostomy tube is as soon as possible after it falls out. If there is an undue re­sistance in passing a lubricated tube of the same size as that which was dislodged, the procedure should be aborted. A contrast study via the tube should confirm a correct placement prior to use.
If a surgical tract is no longer directly accessi­ble, ultrasound or fluoroscopy may facilitate tube replacement at the site of the previously tacked jejunum. In one series, successful jejunostomy tube replacement at the site of a previous surgical jejunostomy was achieved in 26 of 28 attempts
%) [
(92
61]. While the mean time from surgical
jejunostomy tube removal to direct percutaneous placement averaged 278
days, the range included sites as early as 3 days from removal. Some sur­geons will mark the tube entry site into the bowel with
metallic clips to facilitate direct fluoroscop­ic-assisted percutaneous access if necessary [62]. However, as a caveat, metal clips may not always correspond to the exact site of accessible bowel over time [63].
To help mitigate accidental tube dislodge­ment, the device or sutures used to secure the tube to the abdominal skin should be inspected routinely and replaced as necessary.
112 S. P. Gangadharan
Infectious Complications
In a prospective trial, leakage around a feeding tube was detected in 4 %, though only one patient of 79 ended up needing a re-laparotomy for com­plication [7]. (Fig. 11.3) Often, a small amount of succus entericus may stain the dressing around the jejunostomy tube. When this occurs in no­table amounts, local measures may be employed to keep the skin from becoming excoriated. Vigi­lance for signs of superficial or deeper infection must be maintained.
Infection at the tube entry site occurred in
0.5 % of patients in a series of over 400 patients undergoing a Witzel jejunostomy tube [54]. In Han-Geurts’s report of a randomized trial of nee­dle catheter jejunostomy versus nasoduodenal tubes, the rate of site infection was 16 % [7]. With direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes, a 6 % site infection rate has been reported, with all of these being treated successfully with antibiotics alone [45]. In this same series, a single patient (0.6 % incidence) did suffer an abdominal wall abscess in the setting of peri-tube leakage; this required operative debridement. Occasion­ally, with minor cellulitis and no significant ab­scess collection, opening the tract more widely around the tube and passing a wick into the space may help. Occasionally, the leakage associated with the infection is too persistent and re-siting or upsizing of the tube may be necessary. Necrotiz­ing fasciitis is a rare sequela of a tube infection,
but has been described in percutaneous and surgi­cal jejunostomy tubes alike [64, 65].
Aspiration
The rate of aspiration events with jejunostomy tube feeding is a controversial subject. Many groups believe that there is a decreased rate of aspiration with jejunostomy tubes as compared with gastrostomy tube feeding [66, 67]. In the early experience with percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes, a very high aspiration rate (67 %) was reported [68]. However, more mature results from the same group were more promis­ing, with the mean number of aspiration pneu­monia events per month decreasing from 3.39 to 0.42 after the placement of the percutaneous jejunostomy tube [69].
In a counter-argument, one group reported no difference in the rate of aspiration pneumonia with surgically placed gastrostomy and jejunos­tomy tubes [70]. Moreover, a prospective ran­domized trial of nasally placed gastric or jejunal tubes demonstrated no difference in the aspira­tion rate [71]. Jejunal tube feed infusion itself was detected to induce gastroesophageal reflux, even in the absence of gastric distention [72].
The key point around the issues of aspiration is to individualize the treatment to the patient. For example, some patient populations (e.g., elderly stroke patients) laparoscopic enteral access may not obliterate the risks of aspiration and pneumo­nia, and their overall mortality rate may be quite high [73]. The same might be taken into account in the elderly aspirating population, where jeju­nostomy feeding in and of itself does not protect against aspiration pneumonia in patients known to aspirate [74].
Fig. 11.3 Abdominal wall abscess secondary to leaking of succus entericus and tube feeds around jejunostomy tube. Arrow points to jejunostomy tube
Conclusion
Jejunostomy tube feeding remains an important adjunct to major esophageal surgery. While it may not be necessary to perform a jejunostomy tube in every case as nutritional support may be able to proceed uneventfully by mouth, the
11311 Jejunal Feeding Tube Complications
reasonably low rate of complication and the ease of discontinuation of the tube argue that prophy­lactic placement is a valid strategy. Complica­tions of jejunostomy tubes may be reduced with careful attention to the technical details of surgi­cal placement. In addition, early signs of compli­cation must be followed closely so that salvage might occur should a highly morbid process begin to unfold.
Key Points
1. Jejunostomy tubes are often placed at the time of esophagectomy and/or gastrectomy in order to optimize nutritional status. Their util­ity is debated.
2. Jejunostomy tubes can be placed surgically with three different techniques: Stamm, Wit­zel, or needle-catheter. Endoscopic and percu­taneous techniques can be utilized on a selec­tive basis as well.
3. Complications after jejunostomy tube place­ment include bowel necrosis and perforation, obstruction, volvulus, tube-feeding intoler­ance, infection, aspiration, and tube dysfunc­tion. Careful attention to the technical details of tube placement and tube choice are needed to minimize these complications.
4. Technical pearls include avoiding obstruction of the bowel lumen with either too large of a tube size or over-zealous imbrication while performing a Witzel technique. Broad-based fixation of the bowel to the abdominal wall should be employed to avoid obstruction and volvulus.
References
1. Garth AK, Newsome CM, Simmance N, Crowe TC.
Nutritional status, nutrition practices and post-oper­ative complications in patients with gastrointesti­nal cancer. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2010;23(4):393–401. PubMed PMID: 20337847.
2. Mariette C, De Botton ML, Piessen G. Surgery in
esophageal and gastric cancer patients: what is the role for nutrition support in your daily practice? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(7):2128–34. PubMed PMID:
22322948.
3. Senesse P, Assenat E, Schneider Magne N, Azria D, et oncologic treatment of patients with gastrointesti­nal cancer: who could benefit? Cancer Treat Rev. 2008;34(6):568–75. PubMed PMID: 18455316.
4. Kelsen DP, Ginsberg R, Pajak Gunderson L, Mortimer J, et followed by sur for localized esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(27):1979–84. PubMed PMID: 9869669.
5. Ligthart-Melis GC, W molen S, Earthman CP, Verheul HM, et delivered intensive nutritional support is associated with a decrease in severe postoperative complica­tions after sur cer. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26(6):587–93. PubMed PMID: 23237356.
6. Gianotti L, Braga educe A, Di Carlo V. A randomized controlled trial of preoperative oral supplementation with a specialized diet in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Gastro­enterology. 2002;122(7):1763–70. PubMed PMID:
12055582.
7. Han-Geurts IJ, Hop WC, Verhoef C Tran KT, Tila­nus HW. Randomized clinical trial comparing feed­ing jejunostomy with nasoduodenal tube placement in patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2007;94(1):31–5. PubMed PMID: 17117432.
8. Wheble GA, Benson RA, Khan OA. Is routine postoperative enteral feeding after oesophagec­tomy worthwhile? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15(4):709–12. PubMed PMID: 22753430. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3445352.
9. Gerndt SJ, Orringer MB. as an adjunct to esophagectomy. Surgery. 1994;115(2):164–9. PubMed PMID: 8310404.
Tapia J, Mur
10. Onate E. Jejunostomy: techniques, indications, and complications. World J Surg. 1999;23(6):596–602. PubMed PMID: 10227930.
11. Pollak R. Adjunctive procedures in intestinal surgery. In: Fischer JE, editor. Mastery of surgery. Vol 1. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins;
2007. pp.
12. Delany HM, Carnevale NJ, Garvey JW. Jejunos tomy by a needle catheter technique. Surgery. 1973;73(5):786–90. PubMed PMID: 4697097.
13. Shike M, Wallach C, Bloch A, Brennan MF. Com­bined gastric drainage and jejunal feeding through a percutaneous endoscopic stoma. Gastroin­test Endosc. 1990;36(3):290–2. PubMed PMID:
2114340.
14.
Bumpers HL, Luchette FA, Doerr RJ, Hoover EL.
simple technique for insertion of PEJ via PEG. Surg Endosc. 1994;8(2):121–3. PubMed PMID: 8165482.
15. Ponsky JL, Aszodi A. Percutaneous endoscopic jeju­nostomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1984;79(2):113–6. PubMed PMID: 6421149.
16. O’Regan PJ, Scarrow GD. Laparoscopic jejunos­tomy. Endoscopy. 1990;22(1):39–40. PubMed PMID: 2137776.
guia R, Garcia G, de los Monteros PE,
1387–94.
al. Nutritional support during
gery compared with surgery alone
eijs PJ, te Boveldt ND, Busker-
gery in patients with esophageal can-
M, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Ben-
S, Chargari C,
TF, Sheahan DG,
al. Chemotherapy
al. Dietician-
Tube jejunostomy
A
-
114 S. P. Gangadharan
17. Sangster W, Swanstrom L. Laparoscopic-guided feeding jejunostomy. Surg Endosc. 1993;7(4):308–
10. PubMed PMID: 8351602.
Morris JB, Mullen JL, Yu JC, Rosato EF
18. scopic-guided jejunostomy. Surgery. 1992;112(1):96–
9. PubMed PMID: 1535734.
19.
Duh QY,
T-fasteners as retractors and anchors. Arch Surg. 1993;128(1):105–8. PubMed PMID: 8418772.
Gray RR, Ho CS, Yee A, Montanera W, Jones
20. DP. Direct percutaneous jejunostomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;149(5):931–2. PubMed PMID:
3118669.
21. Sarr MG. Appropriate use, complications and advan­tages demonstrated in 500 consecutive needle cath­eter jejunostomies. Br J Surg. 1999;86(4):557–61. PubMed PMID: 10215836.
22. Mistry RC, Mehta SS, Karimundackal G, Pramesh CS. Novel cost-ef feeding-jejunostomy. J Minim Access Surg. 2009;5(2):43–6. PubMed PMID: 19727379. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2734900.
23. Yagi M, Hashimoto T mizu K, et al. Complications associated nutrition using catheter jejunostomy after esopha­gectomy. Surg Today. 1999;29(3):214–8. PubMed PMID: 10192730.
24. Brandmair W, Lehr L. [Early postoperative enteral feeding following esophageal resection]. Langen­becks Arch Chir. 1988;373(4):248–55. PubMed PMID: 3145375. Fruhe postoperative enterale Ernahrung nach Oesophagusresektion.
25. Han-Geurts IJ, Verhoef C, omy following complications of feeding jejunostomy in esophageal surgery. Dig Surg. 2004;21(3):192–6. PubMed PMID: 15218234.
Mercer CD, Mungara A. Enteral feeding in esopha-
26. geal surgery. Nutrition. 1996;12(3):200–1. PubMed PMID: 8798225.
27. Date RS, Clements WD, Gilliland R. Feeding jeju­nostomy: is there enough evidence to justify its routine use? Dig Surg. 2004;21(2):142–5. PubMed PMID: 15044815.
28.
Smith-Choban P, Max MH. Feeding jejunostomy: a
small bowel stress test? Am J Surg. 1988;155(1):112–
7. PubMed PMID: 3124650.
Melis M, Fichera A, Ferguson MK. Bowel necrosis
29. associated with early jejunal tube feeding: a compli­cation 2006;141(7):701–4. PubMed PMID: 16847244.
Schunn CD, Daly JM. Small bowel necrosis associ-
30. ated with postoperative Coll Surg. 1995;180(4):410–6. PubMed PMID:
7719544.
Munshi IA, Steingrub JS, W
31. necrosis associated with early postoperative jeju­nal tube feeding in a trauma patient. J Trauma. 2000;49(1):163–5. PubMed PMID: 10912876.
32. North JH Jr, Nava HR. Pneumatosis intestinalis and portal venous air associated with needle cath­eter jejunostomy. Am Surg. 1995;61(12):1045–8. PubMed PMID: 7486442.
Way LW. Laparoscopic jejunostomy using
fective method of laparoscopic
, Nezuka H, Ito H, Tani T, Shi-
Tilanus HW. Relaparot-
of postoperative enteral nutrition. Arch Surg.
jejunal tube feeding. J Am
olpert L. Small bowel
. Laparo-
with enteral
Strain JD, Rudikoff JC, Moore EE,
33. Pneumatosis intestinalis associated with intracath­eter jejunostomy feeding. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139(1):107–9. PubMed PMID: 6807072.
Khalil PN, Huber-W
34. A, Siebeck M, Mutschler W, et
pattern, and surgical considerations of pneu-
clinical matosis intestinalis. Eur J Med Res. 2009;14(6):231–
9. PubMed PMID: 19541582. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3352014.
35. Thomas Lt, Cohen AJ, Omiya B, McKenzie R, Tominaga G. Pneumatosis intestinalis associated with needle catheter jejunostomy tubes: CT find­ings and implications. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992;16(3):418–9. PubMed PMID: 1592924.
36.
Knechtle SJ, Davidoff
sis intestinalis. Surgical management and clinical outcome. Ann Surg. 1990;212(2):160–5. PubMed PMID: 2375647. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1358051.
Zern RT
37. tinalis associated with enteral feeding by cath­eter jejunostomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65(Suppl.
3):81S–3S. PubMed PMID: 3919351.
38. Smith CD, Sarr MG. Clinically significant pneumato­sis intestinalis with postoperative enteral feedings by needle catheter jejunostomy: an unusual complica­tion. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1991;15(3):328–
31. PubMed PMID: 1907684.
39.
Cogbill TH, W
Jones TN, Strain JD, et intestinalis and subcutaneous emphysema: com plication of needle catheter jejunostomy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1983;7(2):171–5. PubMed PMID: 6406706.
40. Huang K, Wu B, Ding X, Xu Z, agectomy tube feeding: a retrospective comparison of jejunostomy and a novel gastrostomy feeding approach. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e89190. PubMed PMID: 24658763. Pubmed Central PMCID:
3962330.
Gupta V. Benefits versus risks: a prospective audit.
41. Feeding jejunostomy during esophagectomy. World J Surg. 2009;33(7):1432–8. PubMed PMID:
19387726.
Venskutonis D, Bradulskis S, Adamonis K, Urbanavi-
42. cius L. Witzel catheter feeding jejunostomy: is it safe? Dig Surg. 2007;24(5):349–53. PubMed PMID:
17785978.
43. Potter MB, Bowers SB, Pruitt A. Internal hernia with small bowel volvulus in a patient with altered gut motility: a complication of direct percutaneous endo­scopic jejunostomy. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52(8):1910–
3. PubMed PMID: 17393307.
44. Sivasankar A, Johnson M, Jeswanth S, Rajendran S, Surendran R. Small bowel volvulus around feeding jejunostomy tube. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2005;24(6):272–3. PubMed PMID: 16424636.
45. Shike M, Latkany L, Gerdes H, Bloch AS. percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomies for enteral feeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44(5):536–40. PubMed PMID: 8934158.
, Clarke-Pearson DL. Pneumatosis intes-
agner S, Ladurner R, Kleespies
AM, Rice RP. Pneumato-
olfson RH, Moore EE, VanWay CW,
al. Massive pneumatosis
Tang H. Post-esoph-
Jones TN.
al. Natural history,
Direct
-
11511 Jejunal Feeding Tube Complications
46. Hallisey MJ, Pollard JC. Direct percutaneous jeju­nostomy. J VascInterv Radiol. 1994;5(4):625–32. PubMed PMID: 7949721.
Richard HM, Widlus DM,
47. ous fluoroscopically guided jejunostomy placement. J Trauma. 2008;65(5):1072–7. PubMed PMID:
19001975.
Chester JF,
48. overdistension of a jejunostomy catheter balloon: a salutary lesson. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988;12(4):410–1. PubMed PMID: 3138453.
Krishna S, Prabhu R, Thangavelu S, Shenoy R.
49. Jejuno-jejunal intussusception: an unusual compli­cation of feeding jejunostomy. BMJ Case Reports. 2013;2013. PubMed PMID: 23814219.
50. Satoh T, Sawada K, Satoh M, Yohko K Yamada M, Zaitsu M, et due to the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube. BMJ Case Reports. 2011;2011. PubMed PMID: 22715249. Pubmed Central PMCID:
3062045.
51.
Ishii M, Teramoto S,
Yamaguchi Y, Hanaoka Y, et al. Small intestinal intussusceptions caused by percutaneo jejunostomy tube placement. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(12):2093–4. PubMed PMID: 18081681.
52. Wu TH, Lin CW, Yin WY. Jejunojejunal intussuscep­tion following jejunostomy. J Formos Med Assoc. 2006;105(4):355–8. PubMed PMID: 16618618.
53. Liao GS, Hsieh HF, Wu MH, Chen TW, Yu JC, Liu YC. Knot formation in the feeding jejunostomy tube: a case report and review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(6):973–4. PubMed PMID:
17352035. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4065941.
54.
Braga M, Gianotti L, Gentilini O, Liotta S, Di
Carlo V. Feeding the gut early after digestive sur­gery: results of a nine-year experience. Clin Nutr. 2002;21(1):59–65. PubMed PMID: 11884014.
Holmes JHt, Brundage SI, Yuen P Hall RA, Maier
55. RV, Jurkovich GJ. Complications of surgical feed­ing jejunostomy in trauma patients. J Trauma. 1999;47(6):1009–12. PubMed PMID: 10608526.
56. Marcuard SP, Stegall KL, obstructed feeding tubes. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1989;13(1):81–3. PubMed PMID: 2494372.
57.
Marcuard SP, Stegall KS. Unclogging feeding
tubes with pancreatic enzyme. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1990;14(2):198–200. PubMed PMID:
2112629.
58. Sriram K, Jayanthi V, Lakshmi RG, George VS. Prophylactic locking of enteral feeding tubes with pancreatic enzymes. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1997;21(6):353–6. PubMed PMID: 9406135.
59. Bentz ML, Tollett feeding jejunostomy tube: a new method of salvage. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988;12(4):417–8. PubMed PMID: 3138456.
60.
Ozben V, Karatas
R, Tortum OB. A rare complication of jejunos-
Turnbull AR. Intestinal obstruction by
al. Small intestinal intussusceptions
A, Atasoy D Simsek A, Sarigul
Malloy PC. Percutane-
Yakabe M, Yamamato H,
us endoscopic
Trogdon S. Clearing
CA, Dempsey DT. Obstructed
tomy tube: Enteral migration. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2011;22(1):83–5. PubMed PMID: 21480117.
61.
Morrison JJ, McVinnie DW, Suiter P
NM. Percutaneous jejunostomy: repeat access at the healed site of prior surgical jejunostomy with US and fluoroscopic guidance. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(12):1646–50. PubMed PMID: 23177111.
62. Reichle RL, Venbrux AC, Heitmiller RF, Oster­man FA. Percutaneous jejunostomy replacement in patients who have undergone esophagectomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1995;6(6):939–42. PubMed PMID:
8850673.
Berkmen T,
63. guidance in accessing the afferent limb of a modified Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy for percutane­ous dilation of biliary strictures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(10):1219–22. PubMed PMID: 11585890.
64.
Chong AK, Delegge MH. Necrotizing
direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy. Gas­trointest Endosc. 2005;61(7):912–3. PubMed PMID:
15933701.
65. Sriram K. Necrotizing fasciitis ing jejunostomy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988;12(3):322. PubMed PMID: 3134563.
66. Burtch GD, Shatney CH. Feeding jejunostomy (ver­sus gastrostomy) passes the test of time. American Surg. 1987;53(1):54–7. PubMed PMID: 3099620.
67. Weltz CR, Morris JB, Mullen JL. Surgical jeju­nostomy in aspiration risk patients. Ann Surg. 1992;215(2):140–5. PubMed PMID: 1546899. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1242401.
68.
DiSario JA, Foutch PG, Sanowski RA. Poor results
with percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy. Gastro intest Endosc. 1990;36(3):257–60. PubMed PMID:
2114338.
69. Panagiotakis PH, DiSario JA, Hilden K Ogara M, Fang JC. DPEJ tube placement prevents aspiration pneumonia in high-risk patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2008;23(2):172–5. PubMed PMID: 18390785.
70. Fox KA, Mularski RA, Sarfati Warneke JA, Hunter GC, et nia following surgically placed feeding tubes. Am J Surg. 1995;170(6):564–6. Discussion 6–7. PubMed PMID: 7492001.
71. Neumann DA, DeLegge MH. Gastric versus small­bowel tube feeding in the intensive care unit: a pro­spective comparison of efficacy. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(7):1436–8. PubMed PMID: 12130958.
72.
Lien HC, Chang CS, Yeh HZ, Poon SK, Yang SS,
Chen GH. The effect of jejunal meal feeding on gastroesophageal reflux. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;36(4):343–6. PubMed PMID: 11336155.
Durai R, Rose G, Razvi A, Ng PC. Outcome of lap-
73. aroscopy-assisted feeding tube insertion in elderly stroke victims. Acta Chir Belg. 2011;111(2):88–90. PubMed PMID: 21618854.
74. Cogen R, Weinryb J, Pomerantz C, Fenstemacher
. Complications of jejunostomy tube feeding
P in nursing facility patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1991;86(11):1610–3. PubMed PMID: 1951238.
Echenique A, Russell E. Ultrasound
al. Aspiration pneumo-
A, de Quadros
fasciitis after
following feed-
MR, Brooks ME,
-

Part II

Gastric Surgery

Bile Reux and Gastroparesis
Robert E. Roses and Douglas L. Fraker
12
Gastroparesis
Etiology
Postoperative gastroparesis is most often asso­ciated with upper abdominal surgery but may develop after lower abdominal surgery as well. In the early postoperative period following pan­creaticoduodenectomy, gastroparesis has been reported in up to 50 % of patients [1, 2]. In this context, the syndrome of upper gastrointestinal tract dysfunction (i.e., nausea and vomiting) has been termed delayed gastric emptying (DGE). In many cases, this heralds the evolution of a pan­creatic fistula or other infectious complication. There is also some suggestion that operative fac­tors contribute to this problem. Some but not all series have suggested a higher incidence of DGE after a pylorus-preserving operation (PPPD) compared to pancreaticoduodenectomy with an­trectomy [3]. Likewise, retrocolic compared to
antecolic duodenojejunostomy following PPPD has been associated with an increased incidence of DGE [1].
More persistent gastroparesis following pan­creaticoduodenectomy occurs in upwards of 5 % of patients. A similar rate of gastroparesis has been reported after gastric resection. Patients with risk factors for underlying gastric dysmotil­ity (e.g., diabetes mellitus) are at increased risk [2]. Although the era of frequent surgery for peptic ulcer disease has passed, that experience provided substantial insight into the etiology of gastroparesis after gastric resection. Not surpris­ingly, antrectomy with truncal vagotomy was as­sociated with an increased incidence of postop­erative gastroparesis, compared to highly selec­tive vagotomy, implicating gastric denervation as an important contributing factor [4, 5]. Roux­en-y reconstruction was also variably linked to a greater incidence of gastroparesis than either Billroth I or Bilroth II reconstruction pointing to an additional contribution of disruption of intes­tinal innervation.
R. E. Roses () Division of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3400 Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: robert.roses@uphs.upenn.edu
D. L. Fraker Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 400 Spruce Street, 4 Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: frakerd@uphs.upenn.edu
T. M. Pawlik et al. (eds.), Gastrointestinal Surgery, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2223-9_12, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Clinical Presentation and Evaluation
Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the pres­ence of lower gastrointestinal tract function often herald gastric dysmotility. The aforementioned concept of DGE has been variably defined in the literature and this inconsistency has complicated the interpretation of studies on the subject [6]. In an often referenced 1993 trial of erythromycin
119