Search

Abstract Background The management of gastric cancer causing gastric outlet obstruction and dilatation must include decompression of the stomach and intravenous nutrition. Percutaneous transesophageal gastrotubing (PTEG) is an effective technique for either gastric decompression or enteral nutrition. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of double PTEG (dPTEG), that is, using PTEG for both purposes simultaneously, in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and methods Eleven patients with gastric outlet obstruction due to gastric cancer were admitted to our hospital between January 2015 and March 2017 and enrolled in this study. Each patient underwent dPTEG as soon as possible. After dPTEG tubes were placed, gastric decompression was started immediately and enteral nutrition was started within 1 d. Feeding and decompression through the double tubes were continued until the day before operation. Using data from these patients, we investigated the efficacy and safety of dPTEG. Results dPTEG was performed successfully in all patients and no critical adverse effects were observed. Eight of the 11 patients underwent radical or palliative resection. Decompression of the stomach was achieved and nutritional status was significantly improved after dPTEG in all patients. Conclusions We conclude that dPTEG is a safe and effective management technique for patients with gastric outlet obstruction and gastric dilatation due to gastric cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of gastrointestinal surgery. Because retention suture is known to prevent abdominal wound dehiscence, it is only considered indicated in high-risk patients. At present, there are no clear indications for retention suture. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of prophylactic retention suture and to determine what situations indicate prophylactic retention suture against SSI. Material and methods Between January 2014 and January 2016, 135 patients who underwent midline laparotomy in our hospital were analyzed. Inclusion criteria for this study were patients with American Society Anesthesiologists' physical status classification system (ASA-PS score) ≥ 3 or emergent surgery. Results Of the 135 patients, 30 (22.2%) received prophylactic retention suture. Diabetes mellitus, surgical wound classification, large incision, and retention suture were associated with SSI in multivariate analysis. In subgroup analysis, SSI risk factors were analyzed in each surgical wound classification. Only in surgical wound classification class II and III did retention suture significantly reduce the risk of SSI (odds ratio = 0.100 [0.012-0.837], P = 0.034). In class IV, however, half the patients developed SSI, regardless of retention suture. Table 3 summarizes the results of the subgroup analysis. Conclusions The present data suggest that prophylactic retention suture reduces SSI for surgical wound classification class II or III. For class IV operations, however, other methods to prevent SSI are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]