PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2019; 10(03): 150-154
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401391
Original Article
Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Single Center Experience

Ankur Gupta
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Max Hospital, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
,
Anil K. Singh
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Max Hospital, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
,
Deepak Goel
3   Department of Neurology, Max Hospital, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
,
Akash N. Gaind
4   Department of Oncosurgery, Max Hospital, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
,
Shireesh Mittal
5   Department of Radiology, Max Hospital, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
12. Dezember 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Erratum zu diesem Artikel:

Erratum to: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Single Center ExperienceJournal of Digestive Endoscopy 2019; 10(03): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3402701

Abstract

Introduction Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is one of the recommended methods for providing enteral feeding in patients with swallowing difficulty and intact gastrointestinal tract. We review our three years of experience pertaining to PEG placement in our hospital.

Methods Records of all the patients, who underwent PEG between May 2014 to September 2017, were reviewed and relevant clinical and procedural details were noted. For all the patients, the procedure was conducted under antibiotic prophylaxis, moderate sedation, and local anesthesia. The PEG tube was placed by the “pull up” method. Telephonic follow-up of the patients was carried out after one month of study completion.

Results The PEG tube was placed in 73 patients (male 51 [69.9%]; age median [range] 67 [16–91] years). PEG was placed in 42 patients with stroke (57.6%), other neurologic disorders 17 (23.3%), coma due to head injury 5 (6.8%), and terminal malignancy 9 (12.3%). Technical success was achieved in 73 (97%) patients. Eleven procedure-related complications occurred in nine patients (15.5%) including one death due to peritonitis. Of the 57 patients, who could be followed-up after discharge, 41 died of their primary illness after 65 (1–751) days, nine were alive and continuing on PEG tube feed, and in seven PEG was removed because it was not needed.

Conclusion PEG is a useful procedure for enteral feeding. Although procedural success is high, it may be accompanied by significant complications.

Keywords

endoscopy - gastrostomy - postoperative complications - peritonitis - enteral nutrition
 

  • References

  • 1 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15 (06) 872-875
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Tang SJ, Wu R. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pull method) and jejunal extension tube placement. Video J Encycl GI Endosc 2014; 2 (01) 40-45
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lipp A, Lusardi G. Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (11) CD005571
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Banerjee S, Shen B, Baron TH. et al. ASGE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE COMMITTEE. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67 (06) 791-798
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Magné N, Marcy PY, Foa C. et al. Comparison between nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001; 258 (02) 89-92
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Sadasivan A, Faizal B, Kumar M. Nasogastric and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube use in advanced head and neck cancer patients: a comparative study. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2012; 26 (03) 226-232
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Enestvedt BK, Jorgensen J, Sedlack RE. et al. ASGE Training Committee 2013-2014. Endoscopic approaches to enteral feeding and nutrition core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80 (01) 34-41
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Wiesen AJ, Sideridis K, Fernandes A. et al. True incidence and clinical significance of pneumoperitoneum after PEG placement: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64 (06) 886-889
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Mansoor H, Masood MA, Yusuf MA. Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion in cancer patients: a retrospective study. J Gastrointest Cancer 2014; 45 (04) 452-459
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Naik RP, Joshipura VP, Patel NR, Haribhakti SP. Complications of PEG–prevention and management. Trop Gastroenterol 2009; 30 (04) 186-194
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar