Journals / Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Our Experience: Evaluation of 66 Cases

Perkütan Endoskopik Gastrostomi Deneyimimiz: Altmış Altı Olgunun Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
61–64
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)

Objective: While the patients who will not to be fed orally for less than a month are fed enterally with nasoenteral feeding tube, for the patients who are not able to take food orally more than a month gastrostomy application is recommended.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: While the patients who will not to be fed orally for less than a month are fed enterally with nasoenteral feeding tube, for the patients who are not able to take food orally more than a month gastrostomy application is recommended.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: This study was performed simultaneously in two different hospitals between 01.06.2010- 05.01.2014.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, we consider that in the PEG applications performed by the physicians other than surgeons, it would be appropriate to follow up these patients together with surgery clinics.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: While the patients who will not to be fed orally for less than a month are fed enterally with nasoenteral feeding tube, for the patients who are not able to take food orally more than a month gastrostomy application is recommended. Different gastrostomy techniques are used for this purpose. We aimed to discuss indications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in the patients who underwent PEG operation, their early or late complications and the management of these complications. Material and Methods: This study was performed simultaneously in two different hospitals between 01.06.2010- 05.01.2014. The files of 66 patients whose oral feeding is not possible and PEG administered for enteral nutrition were reviewed retrospectively. Results: The most common indications for PEG placement in 47 patients (71.2 %) was malnutrition due to cerebrovascular diseases. A major complication related to procedure was not observed. The most common minor complications were feeding intolerance in 5 (7.6 %) patients and occlusion of tube in 5 (7.6 %) patients. Serious wound infection accompanied by necrosis that requires surgical debridement developed in 3 (4.6 %) patients. Conclusion: PEG offers great advantages because of ease of application especially in the critical patients who are not able to be fed orally due to a problem at proximal part while their gastrointestinal system are intact, and with its capability of being applied even at bedside, not requiring serious anesthesia and team. It is gaining widespread use with the improvement of intensive care units in terms of number of beds and facilities. Major and minor complications encountered require a surgical overview because application is an ostomy procedure. Therefore, we consider that in the PEG applications performed by the physicians other than surgeons, it would be appropriate to follow up these patients together with surgery clinics.

Özet

Amaç: Hastalar bir aydan daha kısa süreli oral beslenemeyecekse nazoenteral beslenme tüpleri ile enteral beslenirken, bir aydan daha uzun süre oral alamayacak hastalara gastrostomi uygulaması yapılması önerilmektedir. Bu amaçla farklı gastrostomi teknikleri kullanılmaktadır. Biz kliniklerimizde endoskopik tüp gastrostomi (PEG) işlemi uyguladığımız hastalarda PEG endikasyonları, erken ve geç dönem komplikasyonları ve bu komplikasyonların yö- netimini tartışmayı hedefledik. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma eşzamanlı olarak 2 ayrı hastanede 01.06.2010-01.05.2014 tarihleri arasında oral beslenme şansı olmayan ve enteral beslenme amacıyla PEG yerleştirilen 66 hastanın dosyası retrospektif olarak incelendi. Bulgular: PEG konma endikasyonları en sık 47 (% 71,2) hasta ile serebrovasküler hastalıklara bağlı gelişen beslenme bozukluğuydu. İşleme bağlı major bir komplikasyonla karşılaşılmadı. En sık minör komplikasyonumuz, 5 (% 7,6) hastada beslenme intoleransı ve 5 (% 7,6) hastada tüp tı- kanmasıydı. Üç (% 4,6) hastada cerrahi debritmanlar gerektiren nekrozla seyreden ciddi yara yeri infeksiyonu gelişti. Sonuç: PEG hasta başında bile yapılabilmesi, ciddi bir anesteziye ve ekibe gereksinim duyulmaması gibi özelliklerinden dolayı gastrointestinal sistemi sağlam olup, proksimaldeki sorundan dolayı oral beslenemeyen ve özelliklede kritik hastalarda uygulama kolaylığından dolayı büyük avantajlar sağlamakta, ülkemizde yoğun bakım olanak ve yatak sayılarının artmasıyla beraber gittikçe de yaygınlaşmaktadır. PEG işlemi sonuçta bir ostomi olduğu için karşılaşılacak major ve minör komplikasyonlarda cerrahi bir bakış gerektirmektedir. Bu nedenle cerrah dışı PEG uygulamalarında cerrahi klinikle entegre olarak bu işlemin takibinin yapılmasının uygun olacağı düşüncesindeyiz

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, İ., DEMİRYILMAZ, İ., ISIK, A., PEKER, K., ÇİMEN, O., SEKBAN, N., ÖZÇİÇEK, A., EKEN, H., BİÇER, Ş. (2015). Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Our Experience: Evaluation of 66 Cases. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2, 61–64. https://ajindex.com/articles/291791

References (13)

  1. Ponsky JL. The development of PEG: How it happened. J Interv Gastroenterol 2011;1(2):88-89.
  2. Hossein SM, Leili M, Hossein AM. Acceptability and outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement and patient quality of life. Turk J Gastroenterol 2011;22(2):128-133
  3. Ermis F, Ozel M, Oncu K, at al. Indications, complications and long-term follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A retrospective study. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2012;124(5-6):148-153.
  4. Cosentini EP, Sautner T, Gnant M, Winkelbauer F, Teleky B, Jakesz R. Outcomes of surgical, percutaneous endoscopic, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomies. Arch Surg 1998;133:1076-83.
  5. Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Indications, limitations, techniques, and results. World J Surg 1989;13(2):165-70.
  6. Demiryılmaz İ, Yılmaz İ, Albayrak A, Şahin A, Sekban N. Uzun süreli enteral beslenmede perkütan endoskopik tüp gastrostomi kullanımı. Sakaryamj 2012;2:122-5
  7. Gauderer WL, Ponsky JL, İzant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparatomy: A percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatry Surg 1980;15:872-875.
  8. Dwyer KM, Watts DD, Thurber JS, Benoit RS, Fakhry SM. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: the prefered method elective feeding tube placement in trauma patients. J Trauma 2002;52(1):26-32.
  9. Rustom IK, Jebreel A, Tayyab M, England RJ, Stafford ND. Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and sugical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120(6):463- 466.
  10. Polsky JL, Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy indications, limitations, tecniques and results. World J Surg 1989;13:165-70.
  11. Rimon E, Kagansky N, Levy S. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; evidence of different prognosis in various patient subgrups. Age Ageing 2005;34(4):353-7.
  12. Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a 10-year experience with 220 children. J Pediatr Surg 1991;26(3):288-294.
  13. Erdil A, Saka M, Ates Y, at al. Enteral nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic g