BACKGROUND: Patients presenting upper gastrointestinal obstruction, difficulty or inability in swallowing, may need nutritional support which can be obtained through gastrostomy and jejunostomy. AIM: To describe the methods of gastrostomy and jejunostomy video-assisted, and to compare surgical approaches for video-assisted laparoscopy and laparotomy in patients with advanced cancer of the esophagus and stomach, to establish enteral nutritional access. METHODS: Were used the video-assisted laparoscopic techniques for jejunostomy and gastrostomy and the same procedures performed by laparotomies. Comparatively, were analyzed the distribution of patients according to demographics, diagnosis and type of procedure. RESULTS: There were 36 jejunostomies (18 by laparotomy and 17 laparoscopy) and 42 gastrostomies (21 on each side). In jejunostomy, relevant data were operating time of 132 min vs. 106 min (p = 0.021); reintroduction of diet: 3.3 days vs 2.1 days (p = 0.009); discharge: 5.8 days vs 4.3 days (p = 0.044). In gastrostomy, relevant data were operative time of 122.6 min vs 86.2 min (p = 0.012 and hospital discharge: 5.1 days vs 3.7 days (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The comparative analysis of laparotomy and video-assisted access to jejunostomies and gastrostomies concluded that video-assisted approach is feasible method, safe, fast, simple and easy, requires shorter operative time compared to laparotomy, enables diet start soon in compared to laparotomy, and also enables lower length of stay compared to laparotomy.
BACKGROUND:Patients presenting upper gastrointestinal obstruction, difficulty or inability in swallowing, may need nutritional support which can be obtained through gastrostomy and jejunostomy. AIM: To describe the methods of gastrostomy and jejunostomy video-assisted, and to compare surgical approaches for video-assisted laparoscopy and laparotomy in patients with advanced cancer of the esophagus and stomach, to establish enteral nutritional access. METHODS: Were used the video-assisted laparoscopic techniques for jejunostomy and gastrostomy and the same procedures performed by laparotomies. Comparatively, were analyzed the distribution of patients according to demographics, diagnosis and type of procedure. RESULTS: There were 36 jejunostomies (18 by laparotomy and 17 laparoscopy) and 42 gastrostomies (21 on each side). In jejunostomy, relevant data were operating time of 132 min vs. 106 min (p = 0.021); reintroduction of diet: 3.3 days vs 2.1 days (p = 0.009); discharge: 5.8 days vs 4.3 days (p = 0.044). In gastrostomy, relevant data were operative time of 122.6 min vs 86.2 min (p = 0.012 and hospital discharge: 5.1 days vs 3.7 days (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The comparative analysis of laparotomy and video-assisted access to jejunostomies and gastrostomies concluded that video-assisted approach is feasible method, safe, fast, simple and easy, requires shorter operative time compared to laparotomy, enables diet start soon in compared to laparotomy, and also enables lower length of stay compared to laparotomy.
Patients who have upper gastrointestinal obstruction and difficulties or inability in
swallowing, may need temporary or permanent nutritional support obtained by gastrostomy
and jejunostomy[16]. These
interventions, traditionally made by laparotomy, present high percentage of surgical and
respiratory complications, having been reported morbidity rates up to 50% and mortality
up to 35%[3,5]. The laparoscopic approach is a promising alternative in
performing jejunostomy and gastrostomy, similarly made like conventional interventions
through laparotomy[10,18]. However, when performed it alone in the traditional
way, have the disadvantage of requiring intra-cavity sutures, which are difficult to
perform, imply specific and extensive training, and increase the operative
time[9]. Video-assisted
laparoscopy allowed the union of the benefits provided by a minimally invasive
technique, security, simplicity and effectiveness provided by well standardized
laparotomy method[14,20] and allows performing additional diagnostic procedures
in case of obstructive esophageal and gastric cancer[5,12].This study aims to describe the methods of gastrostomy and jejunostomy video-assisted,
and to compare video-assisted laparoscopy and laparotomy surgical approaches in patients
with advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, for enteral nutritional access.
METHOD
Technique of video-assisted laparoscopic jejunostomy
The surgeon's position is to the left of the patient, the assistant and the equipment
on the right in front position about the patient's abdomen. The initial abdominal
technique preparation approach is as follows: 1) transverse incision of 1 cm in the
supra-umbilical region; 2) intra-abdominal pressure of 14 mmHg; 3) use of 30º optics;
4) inspection of the cavity, to complement the staging; 4) another 10 mm trocar on
the left side under direct vision at the left axillary line in location that can be
further used for jejunostomy externalization; 5) it is possible to introduce an
accessory trocar of 5 mm on the right side, in the midclavicular line, to facilitate
the exposure of the transverse mesocolon and the localization of duodenojejunal
angle.With the patient positioned in Trendelenburg, the duodenojejunal angle is identified.
A jejunal loop is grasped at about 20 cm in order to reach the abdominal wall using
forceps and pulling out the trocar and loop, extruding the whole set. Then,
pneumoperitoneum is undone and an expansion of the incision about 3 cm is realized to
begin the extraperitoneal surgical time, being held Witzel jejunostomy. With four
cotton 4-0 sutures the jejunum is fixed. The jejunum is returned to the abdominal
cavity and the sutures previously done are used to fix the jejunum to the peritoneum
on the left. The pneumoperitoneum is redone to check the jejunostomy position (Figure 1)
FIGURE 1
A) Surgeon positioning and location of the trocars; B) grasping in proximal
jejunal loop; C) perfoming the jejunostomy outside the abdominal cavity; D)
establishment the jejunostomy fixation
A) Surgeon positioning and location of the trocars; B) grasping in proximal
jejunal loop; C) perfoming the jejunostomy outside the abdominal cavity; D)
establishment the jejunostomy fixation
Technique of video-assisted laparoscopic gastrostomy
Surgeon is positioned on the left of the patient, the assistant and equipment to the
right in front at the level of the patient's abdomen. The initial preparation of the
abdominal access technique is as follows: 1) transverse incision in the skin, 1 cm in
supra-umbilical region; 2) intra-abdominal pressure of 14 mmHg; 3) use of 30º optics;
4) inspection of the cavity to complement the staging; 4) introduction of another 10
mm trocar in the left upper quadrant region, for the externalization of the
Stamm-Caricchio gastrostomy. Surgical manipulation starts with the identification of
the body/antrum transition of the stomach, on middle point between the large and
small curvatures, and grasping gastric segment with atraumatic forceps introduced
through the trocar on left hypochondrium. Follows the externalization to the stomach
together with tweezers and trocar through abdominal incision, increased to 3 cm, and
undone the pneumoperitoneum. Stamm-Caricchio gastrostomy is realized
extraperitoneally. The stomach is returned to the abdominal cavity and secured with
four cotton 4-0 sutures. The pneumoperitoneum is redone for evaluation the correct
fixation of the stomach (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2
A) Positioning of the trocars; B) making the gastrostomy outside the abdominal
cavity; C) fixing the gastrostomy
A) Positioning of the trocars; B) making the gastrostomy outside the abdominal
cavity; C) fixing the gastrostomy
RESULTS
Were analyzed prospectively 78 patients undergoing surgery in Hospital das
Clínicas, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo,
SP, Brazil, being 36 jejunostomies (18 by laparotomy and 17 by laparoscopy ) and 42
gastrostomies (21 per side). The indication was the establishment of surgical access for
enteral nutrition in patients with obstructive and unresectable cancer of esophagus and
stomach. The distribution of patients according to demographics, diagnosis and type of
procedure, correlating respectively the percentages for the indications by jejunostomy
and gastrostomy and through open or laparoscopic approach, follows bellow.
Jejunostomy: laparotomy vs laparoscopy, or in isolated procedures
The mean age was 65.3 vs 58.8 years. Respectively, the diagnosis was: a) gastric
cancer 78.9% vs 76.5%, and cancer of the cardia 5.3% vs 17.6%; b) in isolated
procedures, not compared, cancer of the gastric stump 15.8% and cancer of the
esophagus 5.9%. Operating time was: 132 min (45-195) vs 106 min (60-150) (p=0.021).
Intraoperative technique difficulties were nil vs localization of duodenojejunal
angle in one case (p=0.472). Intraoperative complications: nil vs nil (p=1.0).
Postoperative complications: nil vs nil (p=.0). Postoperative systemic complications:
bronchopneumonia + ileum one case vs ileum one case (p=0.605). Reintroduction of
diet: 3.3 days (2-7) vs 2.1 days (1-4) (p=0.009). Discharge: 5.8 days (3-11) vs 4.3
days (2-8) (p=0.044). Mortality: zero vs one (p=1.0).
Gastrostomy: laparotomy vs laparoscopy, or in isolated procedures
The age was 60.3 vs 55.9 years. The diagnosis was: cancer of the esophagus 85.7% vs
85.7%; cancer of the cardia 14.3% vs 14.3%. The operative time was 122.6 min (45-190)
vs 86.2 min (45-190) (p=0.012). Intraoperative technique difficulties to mobilize
stomach in one case vs nil (p=1.0). Intraoperative complications: nil vs nil (p=1.0).
Postoperative technical complications: ostomy leakage in one case vs ostomy leakage
in two cases (p=0.488). Postoperative systemic complications: nil vs liver failure
one case and bronchopneumonia one case (p=0.488). Reintroduction of diet: two days
(1-3) vs 1.8 days (1-2) (p=0.327). Discharge: 5.1 days (2-12) vs 3.7 days (2-10)
(p=0.016). Deaths: zero vs. one (p=0.689)
DISCUSSION
The gastro and jejunostomies are widely used procedures and easy to perform. They are
indicated when there is need for prolonged enteral feeding, which can be temporary or
permanent. Can be performed by laparotomy, endoscopy, radiology, solely or combined
laparoscopy and video-assisted laparoscopy[2,4,6,7,8,13]. They have great
durability, do not cause discomfort to the airways, have good tolerance and social
acceptability.The ostomy performing by laparotomy requires surgical center, can be performed under
local or general anesthesia and is costly procedure; however, can be performed by one
surgeon, with basic surgical instruments, using probe which is easily found in
hospital[7]. The laparotomy allows
performing additional surgical staging. It is effective for tumor extirpation, when
possible, in addition to enabling both procedures as a palliative or definitive
treatment in advanced malignancies. However, it has significant values in relation to
mortality, major complications, and total number of complications[5,12]. The ostoma morbidity by laparotomy, varies from 13.2 to 50%[3] and the procedure-related mortality from
0.5 to 37%3.14. Can cause systemic complications, such as aspiration and
pneumonia. In this study, related to postoperative technique and complications, one
patient submitted to laparotomic gastrostomy showed leakage around the probe, which also
occurred in two patients who were treated via video-assisted; not at all, however, there
was not systemic effects and the treatment was only local. There were no such
complications on patients who underwent jejunostomy. In this study, there was one case
of severe pneumonia in patients with laparotomic jejunostomy, who developed respiratory
failure and death on the 16th day after surgery.In patients treated with video-assisted gastrostomy there was only one case of pneumonia
diagnosed postoperatively, which was clinically treated with good outcome. In summary,
the cases of pneumonia reported in the present study were independent of access used and
the probe location.Access exclusively by laparoscopy has advantages related to minimally invasive surgery,
providing less pain in the postoperative period, early feeding, short hospital stay,
faster recovery in physical and social activities. It also allows the intraoperative
diagnosis and makes the procedure done under direct vision. The exclusive laparoscopic
approach has the disadvantage to require four portals, one for the optical, two working
tweezers and one for the ostomy externalization. It demands long period for
implementation of the operative procedure. Furthermore, the technical procedure is very
difficult in regard to the placement of the probe and probe fixation into loop, and also
the intra-abdominal fixation particularly in jejunostomies, requiring great skill and
training by professional team, being no longer simple intervention, requiring expertise
in intra-abdominal sutures[11,15,21]. To alleviate the difficulties imposed by exclusively laparoscopic
method, some authors have used T-shaped rods, which help the presentation of the jejunum
or stomach, with better exposure to carrying out interventions. Laparoscopy, meets the
principle of laparotomy - direct view of the structures - and safe procedure, especially
in cases of previous abdominal surgery or adhesion formation, but without the incision
complications related to laparotomy[7,20].Video-assisted approach has the advantage to put together safety, effectiveness,
easiness and the simplicity of laparotomy route associated to the benefits provided by
minimally invasive surgery, and does not require special equipment or instruments for
their implementation. The video-assisted means has no absolute contraindications and its
significant advantage is reducing the incidence of complications related to the surgical
wound, being held by minimal incision under direct vision. It has less pain in the
postoperative period, rapid introduction of diet, discharge and early rehabilitation and
limits contact between surgeon and patient's blood. It is safe method for easy carrying
and demand little time for its realization. It also allows examination of the cavity and
complementary surgical staging of malignancies. Other advantages can be attributed to
laparoscopic surgery, such as lower rate of pulmonary complications, less compromised
immune system related to the surgical trauma and rapid restoration of intestinal
transit[17].This was also observed in this sample where the restoration of bowel function was
delayed in two patients treated by laparotomy, prolonging the beginning of treatment and
discharge. Patients treated with video-assisted jejunostomy had earlier diet
introduction compared to laparotomic route, but there was no significant difference on
diet introduction in patients treated with gastrostomy. This difference can be explained
by the type of diet, which is used in gastrostomy and jejunostomy. The jejunostomy is
more elaborate, and sometimes more difficult to adapt.Surgical time for both gastrostomy and video-assisted jejunostomy was significantly
lower than those treated by laparotomy. The procedures performed with it were easy to
perform, simple, did not require special tools, were performed within a short operative
time, since there was no need for the abdominal cavity closure. These data were
confirmed in this study. The number of days for hospital discharge was significantly
lower in patients treated by laparoscopic surgery compared to those undergoing
laparotomy operation, due its minimally invasive access.The gastro and jejunostomy analyzed in the present study may be added to those already
known indications of laparoscopic surgery
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative analysis of laparotomic and video-assisted access routes for jejunostomy
and gastrostomy concludes that video-assisted approach is feasible method, safe, fast,
simple and easy, requires shorter operative time compared to laparotomy, enables diet to
start sooner in jejunostomy in relationship to laparotomy, and enables shorter hospital
stay compared to laparotomy.
Authors: Andrew C McCoy; Enej Gasevic; Randolph E Szlabick; Abe E Sahmoun; Robert P Sticca Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Josephine Franken; Femke A Mauritz; Nutnicha Suksamanapun; Caroline C C Hulsker; David C van der Zee; Maud Y A van Herwaarden-Lindeboom Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Adam Hermanowicz; Ewa Matuszczak; Marta Komarowska; Elzbieta Jarocka-Cyrta; Jerzy Wojnar; Wojciech Debek; Konrad Matysiak; Stanislaw Klek Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Daniel P Nussbaum; Sabino Zani; Kara Penne; Paul J Speicher; Sandra S Stinnett; Bryan M Clary; Rebekah R White; Douglas S Tyler; Dan G Blazer Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 3.452