Two different endoscopic long intestinal tube placements for XXXX : Transnasal ultrathin endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy.

@entity1 @entity1605 @entity548 @entity1415 @entity1744
AIM: To investigate and compare the effect on @entity1744 ( @entity1744 ) of a long intestinal tube inserted by two different endoscopic placements which are transnasal ultrathin endoscopy and conventional endoscopy. @entity1 AND METHODS: Twenty-nine @entity1 who had been diagnosed as suffering from @entity1744 underwent long tube insertion placed by transnasal ultrathin endoscopy were included as subjects. Thirty-two @entity1 who had undergone insertion of a long tube placed by conventional endoscopy were included as controls. The success rate of intubation of the small bowel, the time required for the procedure, and complications were compared between the subjects and controls. RESULTS: The success rate of intubation was 100% (29/29) in subjects and 93.8% (30/32) in controls, without a significant difference (P = 0.493). There are 2 failed cases that the procedure was attempted near 60 min in 2 @entity1 who had performed @entity1605 before, and the intestinal tube could not be inserted into efferent loops of jejunum in controls. The mean time required for the procedure was 15.3 min in subjects and 22.9 min in controls, respectively, and with a significant difference (P < 0.001). @entity1415 occurred in both groups, and 2 cases encountered @entity548 of the gastrointestinal tract in controls. CONCLUSION: Long tube insertion facilitated by transnasal ultrathin endoscopy takes shorter time and has a higher success rate compared with the procedure conducted with the help of conventional endoscopy. It is safe and useful to insert a long intestinal tube assisted by transnasal ultrathin endoscopy for the decompression of small bowel.
