• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Endoscopic gastric fenestration of debriding pancreatic walled-off necrosis: A pilot study

    2020-12-11 03:32:18FangLiuLiangWuXiangDongWangJianGuoXiaoWenLi
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年41期

    Fang Liu, Liang Wu, Xiang-Dong Wang, Jian-Guo Xiao, Wen Li

    Abstract

    Key Words: Endoscopic gastric fenestration; Walled-off necrosis; Lumen-apposing metal stents; Stent-related complications

    INTRODUCTION

    Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a local complication of acute pancreatitis in which a mature, encapsulated collection of partially liquefied necrotic pancreatic or peripancreatic tissue develops a well-defined inflammatory wall[1]. Evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines issued by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) currently stipulate that in the absence of clinical improvement, endoscopic drainage is now the first-line procedure for symptomatic WON, with endoscopic necrosectomy or minimally invasive methods (rather than open surgery) constituting the next therapeutic step[2]. Although previous studies have shown that endoscopic and surgical remedies are comparable in instances of pancreatic pseudocyst[3-7], endoscopic treatment of symptomatic WON (especially infected lesions) is more of a challenge. The ESGE recommends either plastic or lumenapposing metal stent (LAMS) placement for initial endoscopic transmural drainage[2]. Unfortunately, plastic stents have proven significantly less effective overall in the setting of WON (as opposed to pancreatic pseudocyst) due to their small calibers. Metal stents are now increasingly used for draining WON endoscopically, despite current controversial reports (vsplastic stents)[8-13], and the sparseness of pertinent long-term data. Furthermore, certain complications of stenting, namely delayed bleeding, stent migration, and jaundice-producing biliary strictures, have occurred significantly more often when using metal (vsplastic) stents, especially > 3 wk after intervention[13-18]. Finally, the costs entailed seem considerably higher for procedures involving LAMSs rather than plastic stents, which clearly affects therapeutic choice[13].

    In weighing these factors, we questioned whether bridging of the gastrointestinal tract and WON by stents is a requirement for adequate endoscopic drainage. A more direct method, akin to surgical cystogastrostomy, is so-called endoscopic gastric fenestration (EGF). This approach calls for portals of reasonable magnitude to ensure effective drainage, and it may eliminate the need for and consequences of stenting, with substantial monetary savings. It is imperative that intimate contact exists between WON and the gastrointestinal wall. The fundamental technical difficulties are then gauging adherence (with certainty) and identifying appropriate sites for fenestration. Emergency EGF for recurrent pancreatic pseudocyst has already been performed in China[19]. We thus considered EGF a viable technique in selected instances of WON, applying it to five qualifying patients treated in our department. Here, we provide preliminary accounts of this technique as a promising new intervention for WON.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Patient selection and evaluation

    We enrolled five patients with symptomatic WON after necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) for EGF drainage between March 2019 and March 2020 at the First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital in Beijing, China. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Preoperative enhanced computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed abutment of necrotic pseudocysts against the gastric wall; and (2) Preoperative assessment precluded contraindications for endoscopy and anesthesia.

    All patients agreed to the requisite examinations and gave signed written informed consent prior to endoscopic treatment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the PLA General Hospital (s-2019-298-02).

    Procedures

    All endoscopic procedures were performed by Li W, an endoscopist with > 20 years’ experience in advanced endoscopic techniques who first performed the natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery study in China. Patients were placed in the leftlateral position and underwent tracheal intubation and intravenous anesthesia routinely to avoid aspiration. Before EGF, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS; GFUCT260, Olympus, Japan) was performed initially to assess the adherence of WON to the gastric wall. Accurate measurements were obtained under EUS guidance, adjusting the probe to avoid undue compression of the stomach and WON. The fenestration sites were usually the most obvious compression areas in the stomach in close contact with WON, and were marked prospectively by Dual knife (Olympus) or biopsy forceps under EUS guidance.

    The fenestration procedure was divided into 2 parts: Initial fenestration by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and expanded fenestration. Selected sites in the stomach were incised layer by layer as in ESD until gastric muscularis propria and adherent WON capsules were both penetrated. Then, the “windows” were expanded to 1.5-3 cm by a Dual knife, insulated-tip diathermic (IT) knife II (Olympus) or electric snare (Cook, United States) (so-called expanded fenestration). Expanded fenestration was performed with greater precision under EUS guidance and with respect to spatial orientations of WON, rather than blindly expanded. Finally, fluid drainage and subsequent necrosectomy (if necessary) of WON were performed by endoscopic entry into WON through the fenestration sites.

    Standard postoperative treatments were fasting, intravenous nutritional support, use of proton pump inhibitors, and antibiotic treatment (3 d). If nasal-cyst tubing was placed, passedviafenestration fistula into WON intraoperatively, analytes in drainage fluid (e.g., amylase and lipase) were regularly assayed. CT scans and gastroscopy were usually performed within the first and second week after EGF, repeating endoscopic necrosectomy if needed. Moreover, CT scans and endoscopic follow-up were also performed 2-3 mo after discharge to assess the presence or recurrence of WON, and the healing of fenestration sites. All five patients were followed up by outpatient appointment and telephone consultation for 5-16 mo after discharge.

    Evaluation data

    The primary outcome measures included: Clinical symptoms, imaging and endoscopic characteristics, procedure-related outcome data (including the time of EUS assessment and fenestration procedures), procedure-related complications, postoperative management, endoscopic procedural cost, overall cost of hospitalization and followup, hospital stay, follow-up time and recurrence.

    RESULTS

    Baseline characteristics

    The baseline characteristics of the five cases are listed in Table 1. The average diameter of WON was 13.2 cm (range 9.3-19.5 cm), and multiple WON cysts were observed in two patients. Endoscopic procedures were performed > 4 wk after NP onset. The chief complaints were pancreatic pain and gastric outlet obstruction. EGF was performed 17 mo (afflicted the longest) after NP onset in Case 3. WON was asymptomatic under conservative management for the initial first year, but gradually enlarged and caused abdominal distension. Endoscopic drainage was proposed 6 mo before EGF, while a fistula was revealed in the stomach that indicated spontaneous rupture of WON into the stomach. Abdominal distension was relieved, and no further intervention was performed at that time. However, the WON re-expanded after transient decline, and the patient suffered intracystic infection and hemorrhage 19 d prior to EGF. Intracystic hemorrhage was successfully controlled by emergency intravascular embolization, while the infection persisted and indicated refractoriness to carbapenem antibiotics.

    Endoscopic procedure characteristics

    Case 1 failed EGF due to nonadherence of encapsulated WON to the gastric wall. Subsequent EUS and X-ray fluoroscopy showed maneuvering of WON > 10 cm from the gastric wall, precluding plastic or metal stenting. A nasal-cyst drainage tube was inserted instead, and the incised muscularis propria of the stomach was closed by metal clips (Figure 1). The total procedure time was 178 min and the endoscopic procedural cost was US $3549.1 (Table 2).

    EGF was successfully performed in the other four patients after further refinement of fenestration site selection (Figure 2A-C). Details of the endoscopic procedures are shown in Table 2. The average procedural cost of EGF was US $2139. The total average procedural time was 124 min, including 32.3 min for EUS assessment, 28.8 min for initial fenestration and 33 min for expanded fenestration. The diameter of fenestration sites was 1.5-3 cm. In the first successful case of EGF, initial fenestration area of the stomach by ESD was large (Figure 2E), and expanded fenestration was performed within the initial ESD wound (Figure 2G). As experience of the technique was gained, the initial fenestration area by ESD was narrowed gradually (Figure 2I), and the expanded fenestration area was enlarged up to 2.5-3 cm (Figure 2J). The procedural time for fluid drainage and necrosectomy depended on the size and necrosis status of WON (Table 2). A nasocystic tube was placed in Cases 2 and 3 but not in Cases 4 and 5.

    Postoperative characteristics

    The detailed postoperative characteristics and data are shown in Table 3. The initial three patients fasted for 7 d, while the latter two patients fasted for only 1 d. In Case 1, external drainage of the nasocystic tube was reverted to internal drainage 15 d later (Figure 1K and L). The patient suffered recurrent infection of WON during initial internal drainage, which fortunately responded well to antimicrobial treatment. It took up to 3 mo for WON to disappear. In the other four cases, no EGF-related complications were observed, and postoperative endoscopy (with endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary) showed surprising self-healing of the fenestration (Figure 2H) regardless of whether the nasal-cyst tube was indwelling. WON disappeared within 3 wk after EGF.

    In Case 3, another separate WON (noncommunicating with the EGF-treated WON) continued to enlarge, and fever returned after EGF. EUS assessment showed nonadherence of WON to the gastric wall; thus, a LAMS (16 mm–2 cm; Micro-Tech, China) was placed for drainage (operating time, 71 min; procedural cost, US $2941.1) 16 d after EGF. The LAMS had to be removed 1 wk later due to stent-related hemorrhage. WON had almost disappeared in CT scans before LAMS removal, but reappeared 4 d after LAMS removal and was finally resolved 3 mo later.

    The average postoperative hospital stay and overall cost of all five cases was 17.8 d (range, 8–36 d) and US $13075.5 (range, US $7349.1–20198.3), respectively. Regardless of EGF failure (Case 1) and endoscopic LAMS drainage (Case 3), the average postoperative hospital stay and overall cost of EGF was 9.7 d (range, 8-12 d) and US $10 165.0 (range, US $7349.1-12641.4), respectively. Endoscopic monitoring 2-3 mo after discharge showed that the fenestration sites were well healed. All five patients were followed up for 5-16 mo. No recurrences were observed. All five patients expressed satisfaction with endoscopic treatment and their recuperative status.

    Table 1 The baseline characteristics of all five patients in this study

    Table 2 The main endoscopic procedural characteristics of all five patients in this study

    DISCUSSION

    Currently, endoscopic drainage has become the first-line approach for treating symptomatic WON, comparing favorably with minimally invasive surgical intervention[20-22]. Although traditional endoscopic drainage involves stenting of some sort to ensure a patent fistula and effective drainage, the inefficiency of plastic stents[10,11], the complications (especially delayed bleeding) that may develop[13,14,17], and cost[13]of LAMS devices are problematic. Liuet al[19]reported the emergency use ofendoscopic gastric mural fenestration under EUS and CT guidance to treat a recurrent pancreatic pseudocyst. After full-thickness incision and partial resection of the gastric wall, their patient experienced rapid resolution of symptoms (abdominal distension and dyspnea). Post-fenestration CT and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy both confirmed a smaller pseudocyst cavity.

    Table 3 The main postoperative characteristics of all five patients in this study

    In our study, we restricted EGF to patients with WON close to the gastric wall under EUS investigation. The challenge of this technique resides in the gauging of actual adherence and in selecting appropriate sites for fenestration. As an initial study of EGF, the technical procedures are still being developed. In Case 1, both preoperative CT/MRI and EUS imaging confirmed closeness of WON to the gastric wall, which proved erroneous once the gastric muscularis propria was incised. Subsequent EUS and X-ray fluoroscopy showed maneuvering of WON > 10 cm from the gastric wall, precluding even plastic or metal stenting. This preoperative oversight prolonged operating time, increased cost, and undermined drainage. In addition, there were also some perforations in the stomach after incision of the gastric muscularis propria, increasing the risk of postoperative peritonitis. We further refined fenestration site selection and finally EGF was successfully implemented in the subsequent four cases. We compared CT scan, endoscopy and EUS features of Case 1 with those of the other four successfully treated patients, and preliminarily established the following characteristics for selecting suitable fenestration sites: (1) Intimate contact between the stomach wall and encapsulated WON on preoperative CT scanning, lacking clear layers; (2) Intense inflammation (i.e., edema, erosion or ulceration) of gastric mucosa, detectable by endoscopy; and (3) Modest abutment (generally < 1 cm altogether) of the stomach and WON, determined by EUS, again without clear layers. Given these features, adherence between WON and the gastric wall is likely.

    Figure 1 Case 1 (failed fenestration) with indwelling nasal-cyst drainage tube. A: Closely connected walled-off necrosis (WON) and gastric wall (preoperative computed tomography scan); B: Smooth, compressive indentation of stomach by WON; C: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) showed closely connected WON and gastric wall (with clear layers, red arrow); D and E: Incising the selected sites layer by layer by an endoscopic submucosal dissection approach; F: Nonadherence of WON and stomach after incising gastric muscularis propria; G: WON mobilization far from fenestration site (orange arrow) under EUS guidance; H: Needle puncture into WON from gastric wall; I: Visible separation of WON and stomach by X-ray fluoroscopy after inserting the guidewire into WON; J: Indwelling nasal-cyst drainage tube passed through the stomach into WON and closing the incised gastric muscularis propria by metal clips; K and L: Nasal-cyst drainage tube was cut off and we reverted to internal drainage 15 d later.

    Once successfully executed, we expanded fenestrations beyond the caliber of a LAMS (up to 1.5-3 cm) to ensure effective drainage or subsequent necrosectomy. We found that the fenestration procedure was related to the location, opening diameter, inflammation and blood supply of the fenestration site. Although the procedural time of EGF in our study was still longer than that of LAMS drainage[13], it tended to decrease as experience in the technique was accumulated, without considering the increased bleeding control time due to intense inflammation and rich blood supply in Case 5. The total procedural time might be limited to 60-90 min or less when the technique is matured in the near future. The fenestration sites displayed surprising capacity for self-healing and resolution of WON in the ensuing 1-3 wk. We have since realized that fenestration size may need to fluctuate, depending on the dimensions of WON and the necrotic tissues amassed. In the first successful case of EGF (Case 2), initial fenestration area of the stomach by ESD was large, and expanded fenestration was performed within the initial ESD wound. As experience of the technique was gained, we found it was unnecessary to resect such a large area of gastric mucosa by ESD during initial fenestration. The initial fenestration area was minimized, while the subsequent expanded fenestration was enlarged with greater precision under EUS guidance and with respect to spatial orientations of WON, rather than blindly expanded, thus avoiding intra-abdominal extravasation of gastric juice.

    Postoperative treatments are still being developed in this initial case series. Case 1 who failed EGF fasted for 1 wk postoperatively to avoid metal clips shedding and postoperative perforation. For Case 2 and 3, a nasocystic tube was placed to avoid complete healing of the fenestration fistula and poor drainage of the WON. In addition, both patients fasted for 1 wk until postoperative endoscopy showed surprising self-healing of fenestration fistula, as well as necrotic tissue attachment at the fistula that prevented food from entering the WON. For Case 4 and 5, fenestration fistula was expanded up to 2.5-3 cm to ensure adequate drainage, so a nasocystic tube was no longer necessary. We also tried to restore diet 1 d after EGF, according to the initial experience of EGF and previous experience of endoscopic LAMS drainage. Both patients had no discomfort after eating, so we initially suggested that the diet could be restored as soon as possible if no complications were seen after EGF.

    Figure 2 Endoscopic gastric fenestration technique. A: Closely connected walled-off necrosis (WON) and gastric wall lacking clear layers (black arrow, preoperative computed tomography scan); B: Compressive indentation of stomach by WON, with intense inflammation (orange arrow); C: Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and selection of fenestration site, abutment < 1 cm in combined thickness without clear layers (red arrow); D: Marking of prospective fenestration; E: Initial fenestration by endoscopic submucosal dissection; F: Penetration of WON capsule, releasing fluid content; G: Expanded fenestration; H: Self-healing of fenestration as seen by postoperative endoscopy (1 wk after endoscopic gastric fenestration); I: Narrowed area of initial fenestration; J: Enlarged expanded fenestration up to 3 cm; K: Necrotic tissue and exposed blood vessel in WON; L: Debridement of necrotic tissue.

    Previous studies have indicated that direct endoscopic necrosectomy is not required in all patients with WON[2,20]. In our study, one or two sessions of necrosectomy were performed in each patient. During EGF, necrosectomy was performed selectively according to the extent of necrosis in WON. There was virtually no solid necrotic tissue remaining in WON on endoscopic and CT monitoring 7 d after EGF, which indicated spontaneous drainage of necrotic tissue through the sufficiently large fenestration fistula. Sometimes, necrotic tissue was seen by postoperative endoscopy attached to the fistula, but it rarely affected drainage of WON. Necrosectomy after EGF was performed mainly to remove the necrotic tissue attached to the fenestration fistula, with the primary purpose of obtaining more postoperative data, such as healing of the fistula. Therefore, necrosectomy was not required in all patients who underwent EGF, and the number of necrosectomy procedures was determined by the extent of necrosis in WON.

    In this study, the average overall and procedural cost of EGF was US $10165.0 and US $2139, respectively. Overall cost included cost of the procedure, postprocedural hospitalization, readmission, pharmacy, anesthesia, radiology, and laboratory and other support. It should be noted that as a preliminary study, we arranged detailed postoperative examinations and treatments to obtain more postoperative data, including gastroscopy, necrosectomy and CT scans, which would prolong postoperative hospitalization and overall cost, and some of them might be omitted in the future as experience of the technique is gained. Specifically, Case 3 underwent both EGF and LAMS drainage in succession, inadvertently providing a self-comparison. EGF eliminated the need for and consequences of stenting, and achieved efficient drainage of WON without complications or recurrence. However, initial success after LAMS placement was curtailed by stent-related hemorrhage, forcing removal 1 wk later. Recurrence of WON appeared within 4 d after LAMS removal, prolonging hospital stay and increasing postoperative hospitalization cost. The average endoscopic procedural cost of EGF drainage seemed less than that of a LAMS approach in our study (US $2139vs$2941.1). At present, the cost of endoscopic treatment for WON differs among studies. The overall cost of LAMS drainage was US $20029-53117, and that of plastic stent drainage was US $15941–57486[13,23,24]. Banget al[13]reported that the procedural cost of LAMS and plastic stent was US $12155 and US $6609, respectively. There are few data on the cost of LAMS in China, but a multicenter randomized controlled trial (LVPWON trial) has been designed to determine whether LAMS is effective, safe and superior to plastic stenting for WON drainage[25]. We realize that it is inappropriate to compare the cost of EGF and LAMS only based on this study; thus, we intend to conduct a prospective study to compare EGF with endoscopic LAMS/plastic stent drainage in the future, which could provide more convincing evidence.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, our findings suggest that EGF is an innovative and promising intervention in patients with WON, perhaps outperforming endoscopic LAMS placement if WON is adherent to the gastric wall. A larger patient sample or series of cases must be recruited for controlled trials to better assess the potential benefits.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research perspectives

    The challenge of this technique resides in the gauging of actual adherence and in selecting appropriate sites for fenestration. We intend to conduct a prospective study to compare EGF with endoscopic LAMS/plastic stent drainage in the future.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    Guo X, Zhang XL, Li MY and Yan B participated in the patients' hospitalization management; Zhang ZX, Sun LH and Yang T provided care for the study patients.

    日韩亚洲欧美综合| 日本色播在线视频| 亚洲无线在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 精品人妻1区二区| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6 | 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 高清在线国产一区| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 日日撸夜夜添| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产精品三级大全| 99热6这里只有精品| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 一区二区三区激情视频| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 性色avwww在线观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 黄色一级大片看看| 久久这里只有精品中国| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 十八禁网站免费在线| 俺也久久电影网| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 丰满的人妻完整版| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 一本久久中文字幕| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 欧美区成人在线视频| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 嫩草影院入口| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 亚洲无线观看免费| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 亚洲av美国av| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 在线国产一区二区在线| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 国产精品国产高清国产av| avwww免费| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 日本与韩国留学比较| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 久久久色成人| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 国产高潮美女av| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 天堂动漫精品| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 久久精品91蜜桃| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 久久久久久伊人网av| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 高清在线国产一区| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 一区福利在线观看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 亚洲 国产 在线| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 免费看日本二区| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 精品久久久久久,| 少妇的逼好多水| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 嫩草影视91久久| 99热只有精品国产| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 97超视频在线观看视频| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 久久久成人免费电影| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 特级一级黄色大片| www.色视频.com| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 久久中文看片网| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 精品福利观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产精品一区二区性色av| av在线天堂中文字幕| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 很黄的视频免费| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 亚洲不卡免费看| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| videossex国产| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 亚洲内射少妇av| 免费看av在线观看网站| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 欧美性感艳星| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| avwww免费| 久久久色成人| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 精品久久久久久久久av| 国产在视频线在精品| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国产高清三级在线| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 国产在视频线在精品| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 午夜免费激情av| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 午夜免费激情av| 欧美3d第一页| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 有码 亚洲区| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲在线观看片| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 美女黄网站色视频| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 综合色av麻豆| 成人综合一区亚洲| 亚洲av.av天堂| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 黄色日韩在线| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产成人a区在线观看| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国内精品宾馆在线| 免费av不卡在线播放| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 国产高清三级在线| 日韩中字成人| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 欧美激情在线99| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 99热只有精品国产| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 直男gayav资源| av中文乱码字幕在线| 毛片女人毛片| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看 | 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 午夜精品在线福利| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 88av欧美| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 一夜夜www| 成人欧美大片| 88av欧美| 观看免费一级毛片| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 亚洲国产色片| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 内射极品少妇av片p| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 很黄的视频免费| 永久网站在线| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 九色成人免费人妻av| 级片在线观看| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产 一区精品| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 两个人的视频大全免费| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲内射少妇av| 久久人妻av系列| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 日本色播在线视频| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 哪里可以看免费的av片| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 免费观看在线日韩| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 床上黄色一级片| 国产综合懂色| 在线免费观看的www视频| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 色在线成人网| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区 | 搡老岳熟女国产| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 1000部很黄的大片| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 搞女人的毛片| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 看免费成人av毛片| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| h日本视频在线播放| 欧美zozozo另类| 欧美+日韩+精品| 亚洲无线在线观看| netflix在线观看网站| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 国产综合懂色| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 99热精品在线国产| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲av美国av| 99热精品在线国产| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 91在线观看av| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 日本黄大片高清| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 亚洲国产色片| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 少妇的逼水好多| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| av在线天堂中文字幕| 国产午夜精品论理片| 观看美女的网站| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 九九在线视频观看精品| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 99热只有精品国产| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 少妇高潮的动态图| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 久久精品人妻少妇| 成年免费大片在线观看| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 内地一区二区视频在线| 97超视频在线观看视频| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 有码 亚洲区| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 成年免费大片在线观看| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 看免费成人av毛片| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 不卡一级毛片| 很黄的视频免费| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 亚洲 国产 在线| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 热99在线观看视频| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 亚州av有码| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 亚洲图色成人| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 色5月婷婷丁香| 欧美激情在线99| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 免费看光身美女| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 日本与韩国留学比较| 校园春色视频在线观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 91精品国产九色| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| .国产精品久久| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 嫩草影院新地址| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| bbb黄色大片| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 久久精品影院6| 亚洲性久久影院| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 两个人的视频大全免费| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 99热网站在线观看| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 国产色婷婷99| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 直男gayav资源| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 国产成人一区二区在线| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产三级中文精品| 内地一区二区视频在线| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产日本99.免费观看| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 两个人的视频大全免费| 老司机福利观看| 88av欧美| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 久久久久久久久久久丰满 | aaaaa片日本免费| 日本 av在线| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 亚洲av熟女| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 黄色配什么色好看| 久99久视频精品免费| 午夜a级毛片| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 在线播放国产精品三级| 舔av片在线| 久久香蕉精品热| 很黄的视频免费| 久久久久久伊人网av| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产精品无大码| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 99久国产av精品| 精品午夜福利在线看| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 黄色配什么色好看| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 亚洲av熟女| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 国产亚洲欧美98| 88av欧美| 国产毛片a区久久久久| bbb黄色大片| 免费av毛片视频| 亚洲性久久影院| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 91av网一区二区| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 深夜精品福利| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 日本黄色片子视频| 亚洲av成人av| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 美女黄网站色视频| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 久久久久久久久大av| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 国产探花极品一区二区| 亚洲国产色片| 99热网站在线观看| 日本熟妇午夜| 一进一出抽搐动态| 在线免费观看的www视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 亚洲18禁久久av| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 波多野结衣高清作品| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 天堂√8在线中文| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 久久精品91蜜桃| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 极品教师在线免费播放|