Journals / Selçuk Tıp Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1

Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi (peg) deneyimlerimiz: 68 olgu nedeni ile

Pages
37–42
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)

Multidisciplinary team assessment should be performed all of patients being referred for PEG tubes insertion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) become the modality of choice for providing enteral access to patients who require long-term enteral nutrition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Objective and study design: In this study, our purpose reported on 68 patients who underwent PEG placement between January 2004 and March 2008.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Multidisciplinary team assessment should be performed all of patients being referred for PEG tubes insertion.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) become the modality of choice for providing enteral access to patients who require long-term enteral nutrition. PEG is accepted method of placing a feeding tube to enable enteral feeding in patients with swallowing difficulties. However, the factors associated with complications and death after PEG have not been studied in detail. Objective and study design: In this study, our purpose reported on 68 patients who underwent PEG placement between January 2004 and March 2008. The PEG procedure was performed on 68 patients from January 2004 to March 2008 in intensive care unit. Clinical outcomes were retrospectively collected in these patients. Results: A total of 11.76 % of the identified patients had neurologic disease, 32.35% of patients had trauma, 22.05 % of patients had postoperative respiratory failure, 8.85% of patients had other respiratory failure, 1.47 % of patients had intoxication and 23.52 % of patients had intracerebral hematoma, ischemia, tumor. In all patients, PEG tubes were placed succesfully, but several complications were observed in 13 patients (19.11 %) ( bleeding in 1 patient (1.47 %), infection in 8 patients (11.76 %), subcutaneous amphysema in 1 patient (1.47 %) and obstruction of PEG tube in 3 patients (4.41 %). After PEG tube insertion, 15 patients (22.05 %) died within two weeks. Conclusion: Mortality and morbidity rates after PEG tube insertion are not insignificant. PEG placement appears to be a safe and effective approach to enteral nutritional support in critical care patients requiring long-term access to the gastrointestinal system. Multidisciplinary team assessment should be performed all of patients being referred for PEG tubes insertion.

Özet

Amaç ve Çalışma Yöntemi: Bu çalışmada, amacımız Ocak 2004-Mart 2008 yılları arasında PEG uygulanan 68 hastayı değerlendirmekti. Yoğun bakım ünitesinde Ocak 2004- Mart 2008 arasında 68 hastaya PEG girişimi uygulandı. Bu hastalarda klinik gidiş retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hastaların % 11.76’sı nörolojik hastalıklar, %32.35’i travma, %22.05’i postoperatif solunum yetmezliği, %8.85’i diğer nedenlere bağlı solunum yetmezliği, %1.47’si zehirlenme, ve %23.52’si intraserebral hematom, iskemi ve tümör hastasi idi. Tüm hastalarda PEG tüpü başarı ile yerleştirildi, fakat 13 (% 19.11) hastada çeşitli komplikasyonlar (1 hastada (%1.47) kanama, 8 hastada (%11.76) enfeksiyon, 1 hastada (% 1.47) cilt altı amfizem ve 3 hastada (% 4.41) PEG tüpünde obstruksiyon) gelişti. PEG tüpü yerleştirildikten sonra 15 hasta (% 22.05) 2 hafta içinde kaybedildi. Sonuç: PEG tüpü uygulamasından sonraki mortalite ve morbidite oranları tam olarak bilinmemektedir. Uzun süreli gastrointestinal geçiş gerektiren yoğun bakım hastalarında enteral beslenme desteği sağlamak için PEG uygulaması etkili ve güvenli kabul edilmektedir. PEG tüpü yerleştirilmesi için tüm hastalar multidisipliner bir ekip tarafından değerlendirilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİK, J. B., SİZER, Ç., YOSUNKAYA, A., KÜÇÜKKARTALLAR, T. (2009). Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi (peg) deneyimlerimiz: 68 olgu nedeni ile. Selçuk Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1, 37–42. https://ajindex.com/articles/319542

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980
  2. Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a nonoperative technique for feding gastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1981
  3. Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, et al. Complications related to percutaneous endoskopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. A comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2007
  4. Hiki N, Maetani I, Suzuki Y, et al. Reduced risk of periostomal infection of direct percutaneous endo- scopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure. J Am Coll Surg. 2008
  5. Virnig DJ, Frech EJ, DeLegge MH, Fang JC. Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: a case se- ries in pediatric patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2008
  6. Maple J, Petersen B, Baron T, et al. Direct percu- taneous endoscopic jejunostomy: outcomes in 307 consecutive attempts. Am J Gastroenterol 2005
  7. Maetani I, Yasuda M, Seike M, et al. Efficacy of an overtube for reducing the risk of peristomal infec- tion after PEG placement: a prospective, random- ized comparison study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005
  8. Suzuki Y, Urashima M, Ishibashi Y, et al. Covering the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube prevents peristomak infection. World J Surg 2006
  9. Rimon E. The safety and feasibility of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement by a single phy- sician. Endoscopy 2001
  10. Haslam N, Hughes S, Harrison RF. Peritoneal leak- age of gastric contents, a rare complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1996
  11. Froehlich F, Gonvers JJ, Vader JP, Dubois RW, Burnand B. Appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy: risk of complications. Endoscopy 1999
  12. Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, et al. Complica- tions of upper GI endoscopy. GastrointestEndosc 2002
  13. Dumortier J, Lapalus MG, Pereira A, et al. Unsedat- ed transnasal PEG placement. Gastrointest Endosc 2004
  14. Wolfsen HC, Hemminger LL, Achem SR, et al. Com- plications of endoscopy of the upper gastrointesti- nal tract: a single-center experience. Mayo Clin Proc 2004
  15. Hillman KM. Pneumoperitoneum-a review. Crit Care Med 1982
  16. Tominaga K, Saigusa Y, Ito S, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with