经皮内镜Introducer法胃造瘘术与Pull法的疗效对比

Comparison of clinical results between the Introducer and Pull method on the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)

目的探讨经皮胃镜下使用Introducer与Pull法行胃造瘘的临床疗效对比。方法回顾性分析我院从2010年1月至2012年11月行胃造瘘术的临床资料,包括经皮胃镜下使用鲋田式胃壁固定器及经皮胃造瘘导管套件introducer法胃造瘘术(A组,n=23)和pull法胃造瘘术(B组,n=23)。观察两组在手术时间、并发症、住院时间、经造瘘口注入营养物时间是否存在差异。结果 A组与B组在手术时间、住院时间、经造瘘口注入营养物时间无明显差异,A组病人更换胃瘘导管所需时间平均为(6.0±1.1)min/次。B组平均为17.0±3.49min/次。此外A组术后未发生胃造瘘管腹出,胃造管移位造瘘旁渗漏及胃溃疡,而B组则发生上述并发症各1例。结论经皮内镜下Introducer法与Pull法的胃造瘘术的临床效果相当。但前者术后更换造瘘管所需时间明显较短,术后并发症较少。

Objective To investigate the comparison of clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy （PEG） between the Introducer method and the Pull method. Methods Forty-six patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy （PEG）, which 23 cases were performed by Introducer method （A group） and another 23 performed by the Pull method （B group） from January 2010 to November 2012. The clinical effects were observed. Results No significant differences were found in operative time, hospital stay and the time of nutrient injection between two groups. In the average time of changing gastrostomy tube, the group A and group B were in 6 minutes and 17 minutes respectively. No olisthy, displacement of gastrostomy tube and gastric ulcer were found in group A after operation. But mentioned above postoperative complications were found in one case respectively on group B. Conclusion In the clinical efficacies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, the group A is similar to that of the group B. However in the changing time of gastrostomy tube, the group A is shorter than that group B. And in the postoperative complications, the group A is less than that group B.