METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of 201 patients who underwent endoscopic nasojejunal wire-guided feeding tube insertions for obstruction of either the esophagus or the stomach including both benign and malignant pathologies between January 2015 to June 2018 in Hospital Sungai Buloh and Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Malaysia. The indications for tube insertion, insertion technique, and tube-related problems were described.
RESULTS: The nasojejunal tube was used to establish enteral feeding in patients with obstructing tumors of the distal esophagus in 65 patients (32.3%) and gastric outlet obstruction in 72 patients (35.8%). There were 54 patients (26.9%) who required reinsertion. The most common reason for reinsertion was unintentional dislodgement, where 32 patients (15.9%) followed by tube blockage 20 patients (10.0%). Using our method of advancement under direct vision, we had only 2 cases of malposition due to severely deformed anatomy. We had no incidence of aspiration in this group of patients and overall, the patients tolerated the tube well.
CONCLUSIONS: The novel nasojejunal feeding tube with gastric decompression function is a safe and effective method of delivery of enteral nutrition in patients with upper gastrointestinal obstruction. These tubes if inserted properly are well tolerated with almost no risk of malposition and are tolerated well even for prolonged periods of time until definitive surgery could be performed.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy following staging laparoscopy for UGI malignancies between January 2010 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The data included patient demographics, operative technique and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients (11 males) had feeding jejunostomy done when staging laparoscopy showed unresectable UGI maligancy. Eight (53.3%) had gastric carcinoma, four (26.7%) had oesophageal carcinoma and three (20%) had cardio-oesophageal junction carcinoma. The mean age was 63.3 ± 7.3 years. Mean operative time was 66.0 ± 7.4 min. Mean postoperative stay was 5.6 ± 2.2 days. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy was performed without intra-operative complications. There were no major complications requiring reoperation but four patients had excoriation at the T-tube site and three patients had tube dislodgement which required bedside replacement of the feeding tube. The mean duration of feeding tube was 127.3 ± 99.6 days.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is an important adjunct to staging laparoscopy that can be performed safely with low morbidity. Meticulous attention to surgical techniques is the cornerstone of success.
AIMS: To evaluate the evidence relating to attitudes towards PEG feeding and to determine potential barriers to the acceptance of PEG tube feeding.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. The search for the studies was performed without restrictions by using the terms "PEG", "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "enteral feeding", "attitude", "perception" and "opinion". Qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Quality of studies was assessed with the Alberta checklists.
RESULTS: From 981 articles, 17 articles were included in the final analysis. Twelve qualitative and four quantitative studies were considered of good quality. Seven of the 14 studies reported positive attitudes towards PEG. Three major themes were identified in terms of barriers to PEG feeding: lack of choice (poor knowledge, inadequate competency and skills, insufficient time given, not enough information given, lack of guidelines or protocol, resource constraints), confronting mortality (choosing life or death, risk of procedure) and weighing alternatives (adapting lifestyle, family influences, attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs), fear and anxiety).
CONCLUSIONS: Only half of the reviewed studies reported positive perceptions towards PEG feeding. The themes identified in our systematic review will guide the development of interventions to alter the current attitudes and barriers towards PEG tube feeding.
METHODOLOGY: A prospective comparison of subjective global assessment (SGA), and anthropometry (mid-arm muscle circumference, MAMC; triceps skinfold thickness, TST) between elderly stroke patients on long-term NG feeding and matched controls was performed. Selected clinicians and carers of patients were interviewed to assess their knowledge and attitudes to gastrostomy feeding.
RESULTS: 140 patients (70 NG, 70 oral) were recruited between September 2010 and February 2011. Nutritional status was poorer in the NG compared to the oral group (SGA grade C 38.6% NG vs 0% oral, p<0.001; TST males 10.7 + 3.7 mm NG vs 15.4 + 4.6 mm oral, p<0.001; MAMCmales 187.9 + 40.4 mm NG vs 228.7 + 31.8 mm oral, p<0.001). 45 (64.3%) patients on long-term NG feeding reported complications, mainly consisting of dislodgement (50.5%), aspiration of feed content (8.6%) and trauma from insertion (4.3%). Among 20 clinicians from relevant speciliaties who were interviewed, only 11 (55%) clinicians would routinely recommend a PEG. All neurologists (100%) would recommend a PEG, whilst the response was mixed among non-neurologists. Among carers, lack of information (47.1%) was the commonest reason stated for not choosing a PEG.
CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with stroke on long term NG feeding have a poor nutritional status. Lack of recommendation by clinicians appears to be a major barrier to PEG feeding in these patients.