Search

Purpose: Anastomotic leak (AL) represents the most relevant and devastating complication in colorectal surgery. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) using the VACStent is regarded as a significant improvement in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal wall defects. The innovative concept of the VACStent was transferred to the lower GI tract, gaining initial experience by investigating safety and efficacy in 12 patients undergoing colorectal resections. Methods: The pilot study, as part of a German registry, began with 2 patients suffering from AL, who were treated with the VACStent after stoma placement. Subsequently, 6 patients with AL were treated with the VACStent omitting a stoma placement, with a focus on fecal passage and wound healing. Finally, the preemptive anastomotic coverage was investigated in 4 patients with high-risk anastomoses to avoid prophylactic stoma placement. Results: In total 26 VACStents were placed without problems. The conditioning and drainage function were maintained, and no clogging problems of the sponge cylinder were observed. No relevant clinical VACStent-associated complications were observed; however, in 2 patients, a dislodgement of a VACStent occurred. The 6 patients with AL but without stoma had a median treatment with 3 VACStents per case with a laytime of 17 days, leading to complete wound healing in all cases. The 4 prophylactic VACStent applications were without complications. Conclusion: The clinical application of the VACStent in the lower GI tract shows that successful treatment of anastomotic colonic leaks and avoidance of creation of an anus praeter is possible. Trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04884334, date of registration 2021-05-04, retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using the pull-technique is the standard method for enteral feeding in patients with swallowing disorders. A different introducer technique with endoscopically controlled gastropexy is available avoiding oropharyngeal passage with the internal bumper. The aim of the study was to assess long-term safety of this technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1999 and November 2001, 684 patients received a PEG in our prospective cohort trial. In 92.5% of cases a PEG was applied using the pull-through technique. In 6.7% of the patients (40 males, 6 females, mean age 60.6 yr) primary PEG application using the pull-through technique was not possible and an endoscopical controlled introducer PEG (Cliny PEG 13 CH (= 13 F), AP Nenno, Germany) with two gastropexies was placed. Data collection criteria included application success, infectious complications (within 180 days), other complications (within 180 days), and mortality (within 180 days). Procedure, catheter change, and follow-up were standardized. RESULTS: PEG placement was successful in all patients. During initial follow-up we saw a low rate of minor problems. In one case a peristomal peritonitis was seen due to detachment of two gastropexy sutures. During long-term follow-up only one local infection requiring antibiotic treatment occurred on day 14. We observed no treatment related mortality. In most of the patients the primary catheter was changed into a secondary system as scheduled. The average observation period was 131.8 days (range: 15–180 days). CONCLUSION: The Cliny PEG 13 CH can be placed safely in an endoscopically controlled introducer procedure with dual gastropexy. Long-term follow-up of the patients revealed only minor complications. Primary indication is given in patients in whom PEG placement using the pull-through technique is not possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). METHODS: An open prospective, randomised, multicenter study was conducted in 141 patients; 72 received ceftriaxone 1 g i.v. 30 min preintervention, and 69 received no study medication. A standardized protocol was followed for PEG preparation, insertion, and aftercare; all patients received a 15-Fr gastrostomy tube. Follow-up of local and systemic infection and clinical course was continued to postintervention day 10. An aggregate erythema and exudation score >3 or the presence of pus was taken as indicative of peristomal infection. The pharmacoeconomics of antibiotic use were also examined. RESULTS: In no-prophylaxis patients, wound infection rates were 25% on day 4 and 26.4% on day 10, versus 10.1 % (p = 0.03) and 14.5% (p = 0.10), respectively, in prophylaxis patients. Results were disproportionally better in tumor patients: systemic infection rates were 16.7% versus 5.8% in no-prophylaxis versus prophylaxis patients (p = 0.045), and overall infection rates 38.9% versus 17.4%, respectively (p = 0.046). Pneumonia was more frequent in patients with underlying neurological disease. Antibiotic costs were the same in both groups (p = 0.792). CONCLUSIONS: Single dose ceftriaxone 1 g is an effective prophylaxis against local and systemic infection after PEG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]