PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(11): E1454-E1461
DOI: 10.1055/a-1924-3525
Original article

Complication rates of direct puncture and pull-through techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Results from a large multicenter cohort

Leonie Schuhmacher
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
,
Christian Bojarski
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
,
Victoria Reich
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
,
Andreas Adler
2   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany
,
Winfried Veltzke-Schlieker
2   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany
,
Christian Jürgensen
2   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany
,
Bertran Wiedenmann
2   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany
,
Britta Siegmund
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
,
Federika Branchi
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
,
Julianne Buchkremer
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
,
Steffen Hornoff
3   Department of Gastroenterology, Sana-Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany
,
Dirk Hartmann
3   Department of Gastroenterology, Sana-Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany
,
Christoph Treese 
1   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Erratum zu diesem Artikel:

Correction: Complication rates of direct puncture and pull-through techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Results from a large multicenter cohortEndosc Int Open 2022; 10(11): C9-C9
DOI: 10.1055/a-1980-9299

Abstract

Background and study aims Two different techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) have been developed: classical pull-through and direct puncture techniques. This study compared the complication rate for both techniques in a large retrospective patient cohort.

Patients and methods Clinical data from patients who received a PEG in four high-volume centers for endoscopy were included retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2018. Patient characteristics and complication rates were correlated in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results Data from 1014 patients undergoing a PEG insertion by the pull-through technique were compared to 183 patients for whom the direct puncture technique was used. The direct puncture technique was associated with a 50 % reduction in minor and 85.7 % reduction in major complications when compared to the pull-through technique. Multivariate analysis of these data revealed an odds ratio of 0.067 (0.02–0.226; P < 0.001) for major complications in the direct puncture group.

Conclusions Compared to the pull-through technique, the direct puncture technique resulted in a significant reduction in complications. Despite the retrospective design of this study, these results suggest that the direct puncture technique may be preferable to improve patient safety.



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 15. Februar 2022

Angenommen nach Revision: 11. August 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
15. August 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. November 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Kommentar zu diesem Artikel:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2022; 54(12): 1236-1236
DOI: 10.1055/a-1899-3772

 

  • References

  • 1 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15: 872-875
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Grund K, Zipfel A. Perkutane endoskopische Gastrostomie – Komplikationen vermeiden und therapieren. Gastroenterol Update 2017; 13: 83-99
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Iyer KR, Crawley TC. Complications of enteral access. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007; 17: 717-729
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Teich N, Selig L, Liese S. et al. Usage characteristics and adverse event rates of the direct puncture and pull techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients ith malignant tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract. Endosc Int Open 2018; 06: E29-E35
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Toyama Y, Usuba T, Son K. et al. Successful new method of extracorporeal percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (E-PEG). Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2007; 21: 2034-2038
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Maetani I, Yasuda M, Seike M. et al. Efficacy of an overtube for reducing the risk of peristomal infection after PEG placement: a prospective, randomized comparison study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 522-527
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hiki N, Maetani I, Suzuki Y. et al. Reduced risk of peristomal infection of direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207: 737-744
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Tucker AT, Gourin CG, Ghegan MD. et al. “Push” versus “pull” percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 1898-1902
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Shigoka H, Maetani I, Tominaga K. et al. Comparison of modified introducer method with pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Prospective randomized study. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 426-431
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Tanaka N. et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing the direct method using a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device with the pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 722-726
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Van Dyck E, Macken EJ, Roth B. et al. Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: A retrospective analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 23
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gkolfakis P, Arvanitakis M, Despott EJ. et al. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients – Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. . Endoscopy 2021; 53: 178-195
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Riphaus A, Wehrmann T, Hausmann J. et al. Update S3-Leitlinie Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie 2014 (AWMF-Register-Nr. 021/014). 2015;
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar