• <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.

    日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 99国产精品99久久久久| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 久久九九热精品免费| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 亚洲综合色网址| 一级片免费观看大全| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 午夜免费观看性视频| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 国产成人91sexporn| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 久热这里只有精品99| 搡老岳熟女国产| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 午夜久久久在线观看| 日本wwww免费看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 大香蕉久久成人网| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 深夜精品福利| av欧美777| 精品人妻1区二区| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 五月天丁香电影| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 人体艺术视频欧美日本| videos熟女内射| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 亚洲精品第二区| 国产精品免费视频内射| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产高清videossex| 久久影院123| 国产视频首页在线观看| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | 首页视频小说图片口味搜索 | 999精品在线视频| 午夜激情av网站| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 精品少妇内射三级| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 在线观看国产h片| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 两个人看的免费小视频| 两个人看的免费小视频| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 性色av一级| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 精品少妇内射三级| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 一级毛片 在线播放| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 99九九在线精品视频| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| videosex国产| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 一区二区三区精品91| 又大又爽又粗| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 七月丁香在线播放| 成人影院久久| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 亚洲 国产 在线| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 手机成人av网站| 国产成人欧美| av欧美777| 久久av网站| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产精品二区激情视频| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 五月开心婷婷网| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 最黄视频免费看| 少妇人妻 视频| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 黄片播放在线免费| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 手机成人av网站| 老司机靠b影院| 91成人精品电影| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 国产主播在线观看一区二区 | 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 久久青草综合色| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 亚洲精品第二区| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区 | 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| netflix在线观看网站| 老司机靠b影院| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 久久中文字幕一级| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 看免费av毛片| 一本久久精品| 午夜激情av网站| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 一区福利在线观看| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 中文欧美无线码| 最新在线观看一区二区三区 | 无限看片的www在线观看| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片 | 亚洲成人手机| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 亚洲伊人色综图| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产精品九九99| 香蕉丝袜av| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 一级毛片 在线播放| 一级毛片电影观看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 久久久欧美国产精品| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 少妇人妻 视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 两个人看的免费小视频| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 搡老岳熟女国产| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站 | 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 深夜精品福利| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 亚洲免费av在线视频| av国产精品久久久久影院| 欧美日韩av久久| 免费在线观看影片大全网站 | 五月开心婷婷网| 大香蕉久久成人网| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 老司机影院毛片| 只有这里有精品99| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 最黄视频免费看| 在线观看国产h片| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 日韩电影二区| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片 | 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 国产精品二区激情视频| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 操出白浆在线播放| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| av在线app专区| 1024香蕉在线观看| 天天添夜夜摸| 久久免费观看电影| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 香蕉国产在线看| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 欧美日韩精品网址| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美 | bbb黄色大片| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 一区福利在线观看| av在线app专区| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区 | 日本午夜av视频| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 一级毛片电影观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 中文字幕制服av| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 丁香六月欧美| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 国产成人欧美| 免费看不卡的av| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 搡老乐熟女国产| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 亚洲国产精品999| a级毛片在线看网站| 欧美另类一区| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 深夜精品福利| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | www.精华液| 久久国产精品影院| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 国产成人精品无人区| 国产激情久久老熟女| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 日韩一区二区三区影片| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区 | 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看 | 成人影院久久| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 超碰成人久久| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 香蕉国产在线看| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 久久久久久人人人人人| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 国产精品一国产av| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码 | 亚洲欧美激情在线| 人妻一区二区av| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 欧美大码av| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 我的亚洲天堂| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 日本wwww免费看| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 日本91视频免费播放| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 操美女的视频在线观看| 亚洲成人手机| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 咕卡用的链子| 欧美在线黄色| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片 | 国产高清视频在线播放一区 | 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 高清欧美精品videossex| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 中文欧美无线码| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 婷婷成人精品国产| 老司机影院毛片| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 午夜视频精品福利| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 国产在线免费精品| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看 | 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 高清不卡的av网站| 嫩草影视91久久| 男女之事视频高清在线观看 | 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 老熟女久久久| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 久久热在线av| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 久久久精品94久久精品| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 考比视频在线观看| 久久99精品国语久久久| 亚洲成人手机| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 免费观看av网站的网址| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 9热在线视频观看99| 人妻一区二区av| 一区二区av电影网| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 精品福利永久在线观看| 大码成人一级视频| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 午夜老司机福利片| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| av福利片在线| 高清不卡的av网站| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 国产精品一国产av| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 99香蕉大伊视频| 咕卡用的链子| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 最黄视频免费看| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 夫妻午夜视频| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 国产在线观看jvid| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 深夜精品福利| 桃花免费在线播放| 一级黄色大片毛片| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| a级毛片黄视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| xxx大片免费视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲av男天堂| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| a级毛片在线看网站| 99九九在线精品视频| 亚洲国产精品999| 国产男女内射视频| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 99九九在线精品视频| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 中国国产av一级| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 日日夜夜操网爽| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | av电影中文网址| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 一级片'在线观看视频| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 国产色视频综合| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 一本久久精品| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 最新在线观看一区二区三区 | 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 9色porny在线观看| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 777米奇影视久久| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播 | 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 久久国产精品影院| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 一区在线观看完整版| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 99久久综合免费| 国产精品九九99| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 精品一区二区三卡| 成人国产av品久久久| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 九草在线视频观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 久久99精品国语久久久| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 日本a在线网址| 精品高清国产在线一区| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 久久狼人影院| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 午夜影院在线不卡| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 99久久综合免费| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 99国产精品99久久久久| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 免费少妇av软件| 国产激情久久老熟女| 免费少妇av软件| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 国产主播在线观看一区二区 | 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| xxx大片免费视频| 日本五十路高清| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索 | 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 精品一区二区三卡| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产麻豆69| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 亚洲综合色网址| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 制服人妻中文乱码| 亚洲国产精品999| 脱女人内裤的视频| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 精品久久久精品久久久| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 1024视频免费在线观看| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 欧美97在线视频| 多毛熟女@视频|