Short-Term Clinical Outcomes after Using Novel Deeper Intubation Technique (DIT) of Ileus Tube for Acute Bowel Obstruction Patients

Yanlu Tan; Haibin Chen; Wenji Mao; Qin Yuan; Jun Niu

doi:10.1155/2020/1625154

Short-Term Clinical Outcomes after Using Novel Deeper Intubation Technique (DIT) of Ileus Tube for Acute Bowel Obstruction Patients

Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020 May 15:2020:1625154. doi: 10.1155/2020/1625154. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Yanlu Tan¹, Haibin Chen², Wenji Mao³, Qin Yuan⁴, Jun Niu⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Interventional Surgery, Central Hospital of Zibo, Zibo, China.
² Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
³ Department of Radiology, Central Hospital of Zibo, Zibo, China.
⁴ Outpatient Department, Central Hospital of Zibo, Zibo, China.
⁵ Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.

Abstract

Background: The ileus tube has been widely used for the treatment of acute small bowel obstruction. However, it is difficult to get the tube sufficiently adjacent to the obstruction site due to various reasons.

Methods: We developed a novel intubation technique, named Deeper Intubation Technique (DIT), by using the Zebra Urological Guidewire and digital gastrointestinal fluoroscopy, where we deepened the catheter intubation, and further compared the effects of DIT with the Traditional Intubation Technique (TIT) on the short-term clinical outcomes of 183 patients.

Results: The average intubation depth of DIT apparently exceeds that of TIT (213.89 ± 31.11 vs. 134.67 ± 18.22 cm, P < 0.001). Compared with patients in the TIT group, patients in the DIT group got a lower pain score (P < 0.001), shorter recovery time for anal exhaust defecation (2.87 ± 1.50 vs. 3.37 ± 1.52 d, P = 0.040), higher recovery rate in anal exhaust defecation (24 h, 16.8% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.021; 48 h, 46.3% vs. 27.3%, P = 0.009), better symptomatic remission rate and imaging relief rate (P < 0.05), and increased drainage volume (1006.88 ± 583.45 vs. 821.02 ± 358.73 ml, P = 0.009). Importantly, the emergency surgery rate in the DIT group was lower than that in the TIT group (3.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.014). In addition, the DIT procedure was effective for patients with adhesive obstruction but not for cancerous and stercoral bowel obstruction.

Conclusion: Compared to TIT, DIT produced better short-term clinical outcomes, indicating that DIT is a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of adhesive intestinal obstruction.