Journals / Medicine Science / 2017 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

An evaluation of the indications, complications and results of patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Pages
280–284
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall minor complication rate was %13,7, and overall major complication rate (buried bumpersyndrome) was 3.2%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim of this study is to evaluate the indications, complications and results of patients undergoing percutaneus endoscopic gastrostomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In our study, we evaluated the outpatients or hospitalized patients applying to Turgut Özal Medical Center between April 2008-November 2010. 247 patients who would be unable to perform oral feeding for at least 4 weeks and underwent for PEG procedure were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall minor complication rate was %13,7, and overall major complication rate (buried bumpersyndrome) was 3.2%.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim of this study is to evaluate the indications, complications and results of patients undergoing percutaneus endoscopic gastrostomy. In our study, we evaluated the outpatients or hospitalized patients applying to Turgut Özal Medical Center between April 2008-November 2010. 247 patients who would be unable to perform oral feeding for at least 4 weeks and underwent for PEG procedure were evaluated retrospectively. PEG procedure was performed 296 times on 247 cases. The most common indication for PEG has been neurological diseases (39.2%), other indications follow up in order with respiratory failure (10.5%), multiple trauma (10.1%), hypoxic encephalopahty (8.6%) and the other diseases (6.5%). Complications associated with PEG were wound infection (5.6%), tube blockage (3.2%), tube fracture (2.4%), tube leakage (2.4%), breakage (2.4%), and buried bumper syndrom (3.2%). Overall minor complication rate was %13,7, and overall major complication rate (buried bumpersyndrome) was 3.2%. The most common complication was wound infection. During follow-up, 102 patients died of primary disease. 30 days (early) and 1 year mortality rates were 14.3% and 39.5%. Overall mortality rate was 41,3% and mean survival was 17.34 ± 0.7 months. PEG tube was removed in 10 cases because of a adequate oral intake. The mean duration of a PEG tube stay was 16 ± 1.2 months. PEG is a procedure requiring no general anesthesia with low morbidity and mortality rates. It is also an effective, safe method which can be performed at the bedside. It should be one of methods prefered for patients who need long-term enteral nutrition

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, O., SEÇKİN, Y., BİLGİÇ, Y., KARINCAOĞLU, M., ALADAĞ, M. (2017). An evaluation of the indications, complications and results of patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Medicine Science, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 280–284. https://ajindex.com/articles/277886

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Gauderer MWL, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Paediatr Surg. 1980;15(6):872–5
  2. Ho CS, Yee ACN, McPherson R. Complications of surgical and percutaneous nonendoscopic gastrostomy: review of 233 patients. Gastroenterology. 1988;95(5):1206–10
  3. Grant JP. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Stamm gastrostomy. Ann Surg. 1988;207(5):598–603
  4. Russell TR, Brotman M, Norris F. Percutaneous gastrostomy. A new simplified and costeffective technique. Am J Surg. 1984;148(1):130- 1
  5. Jones M, Santanello SA, Falcone RE. Percutaneous endoscopic vs surgical gastrostomy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1990;14(5):533– 4
  6. Karminski M, Jeejeebhoy KN. Modern clinical nutrition. Am IV Ther and Clin Nut. 1979;32(1)23-38
  7. Akner G, Cederholm T. Treatment of PEM in chronic nonmalignant disorders. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74(1):6-24
  8. Kondrup J, Johansen N, Plum LM, Bak L, Larsen IH, Martinsen A, Andersen JR, Baernthsen H, Bunch E, Lauesen N. Incidence of nutritional risk and causes of inadequate nutritional care in hospitals. Clin Nutr. 2002;21(6):461-8
  9. Escallon J, Total Nutrition Therapy. Chicago IIIinois, 1997
  10. Matarese LE, Gotthschlich MM, eds. Contemporary Nutrition Support Practice. 2nd. ed. St Louis: WB Saunders; 2003;181-7
  11. Hamidon BB, Abdullah SA, Zawawi MF, Sukumar N, Aminuddin A, Raymond AA. A prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with acute dysphagic stroke. Med J Malaysia. 2006 Mar;61(1):59-66
  12. Park RH, Allison MC, Lang J, Spence E, Morris AJ, Danesh BJ, Russell RI, Mills PR. Randomised comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia. BMJ. 1992;304(6839):1406-9
  13. Baeten C, Hoefnagels J. Feeding via nasogastric tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A comparison. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1992;194:95-8
  14. French Society of Digestive Endoscopy. Guidelines of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SFED): Endoscopic Gastrostomy. Endoscopy. 1999;31(2):207-8
  15. Löser Chr, Fölsch UR. Guidelines of the German Association of Gastroenterology (DGVS) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Z Gastroenterol. 1996;34:637–41
  16. Löser C. Clinical aspects of long-term enteral nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). J Nutr Health Aging. 2000;4(1):47–50
  17. Aschl G, Kirchgatterer A, Allinger S,