Journals / Ulusal Travma Dergisi / 2002 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and results

Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi ve sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi

Pages
26–28
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)

Conclusions: PEG is the route of choice for a long lived enterai nutrition, because, it can be applied without general anesthesia, easy to apply, patients can start feeding in a short time period, need shorter hospital stay, can be changed easily, cost effective and has a low rate of mortality and morbidity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: The aim of this study is evaluate the percutaneous endoscopie gastrostomy (PEG) and its complications in order to provide enterai nutrition support for a long time period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: PEG tube was applied to 15 patients aged between 18-95 years, who could not feed orally prohylactic antibiotic didnt use to any patient.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusions: PEG is the route of choice for a long lived enterai nutrition, because, it can be applied without general anesthesia, easy to apply, patients can start feeding in a short time period, need shorter hospital stay, can be changed easily, cost effective and has a low rate of mortality and morbidity.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonlar · İleriye dönük çalışma · Tedavi sonucu

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is evaluate the percutaneous endoscopie gastrostomy (PEG) and its complications in order to provide enterai nutrition support for a long time period. Methods: PEG tube was applied to 15 patients aged between 18-95 years, who could not feed orally prohylactic antibiotic didnt use to any patient. After 8 hours hungry PEG was applied by using pull technique and the results were evaluated prospectively. Results: PEG was successfully done in 14 patients. Gastric juice drainage at the sides of the tube were seen in two patients, and PEG was pulled out in one of them. Conclusions: PEG is the route of choice for a long lived enterai nutrition, because, it can be applied without general anesthesia, easy to apply, patients can start feeding in a short time period, need shorter hospital stay, can be changed easily, cost effective and has a low rate of mortality and morbidity.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada oral beslenemeyen, ancak gastrointestinal sistem fonksiyonları normal olan hastalarda uzun süreli enterai nutrisyon desteği sağlamak için perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi tüpü (PEG) yerleştirilerek işlemin etkinliğinin ve komplikasyonların değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: PEG işlemi için hazırlanan, yaşları 18-95 arasında değişen 15 hasta uygulama öncesi 8 saat aç bırakılmış, hiçbir hastaya proflaktik antibiotik uygulanmamıştır. PEG yöntemi, çekme (Pull) tekniği kullanılarak yapılmış sonuçlar prospektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Hastaların 14'ünde PEG işlemi başarılmıştır. 2 hastada komplikasyon olarak tüp kenarından sızıntı olmuştur, bunların 1 tanesinde PEG geri çekilmiştir. Sonuç: PEG uygulamasının genel anestezi ve ameliyathane şartları gerektirmemesi, teknik olarak kolay uygulanması, beslenmeye erken başlanması, hastanede kalış süresini kısaltması, ekonomik ve güvenli olması, mortalité ve morbidité oranının düşük olması nedeniyle uzun süreli enterai beslenmede tercih edilmesi gereken bir yöntem olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERYILMAZ, M. A., ERDEN, V., MEMMİ, N., BAŞARANOĞLU, G., ÇELEBİ, F. (2002). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and results. Ulusal Travma Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 26–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/324987

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Fiona B Nicholson, Melvyn G Korman and Maureen a ağlı Richardson: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A review of on, indications, Complications and Outcome. J Gastroentero and gus. Hepato; 15:21 -25,2000. ve 2. Shellito PC, Malt RA. Tube Gastrostomy technique and ve complications. Ann. Surg.;20: 180-5,1985. şen 3. Russel T, Brotman M, Norris F. Percutaneous endoscopic 17). gastrostomy: A new simplified and cost effective tecnique. Am] ski Surg;184:130, 1984. nen 4. Jones M, Santanello SD, Falcone RE. Percutaneous ilan endoscopic versus surgical gastrostomy. J Paren Ent Bu Nutr; 14:533,1990. üne 5. Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donnelly MT, et al: A D ü n randomized prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic ilen gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic;ıntı stroke. BMJ; 312 (7022): 13-6, 1996. 6. Park RH, Allison MC, Lang J, et al.: Randomized comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia. BMJ;304(6839): 1406-9,1992. 7. Akıncı IÖ, Özcan P, Tuğrul S ve arkadaşları: Yoğun bakım ünitesinde perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi. Ulusal Travma Dergisi. 6 (4):281 -3,2000. 8. Stern JS. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with surgical gastrostomy at a community hospital. Am] Gastroenterol; 12:1171-3,1986. 9. Moller P, Lindberg CG, Zilling T. Gastrostomy by various techniques: evaluation of indications, outcome and complications. ScandJ Gastroenterol Oct;34(10): 1050-4,1999. 10. Payne KM; King TM; Eisenach JB. The technique of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyA safe and cost-effective alternative to operative gastrostomy. J crit IUn 6(6):611-9, 1991. 11. Thornton FJ, VargheseJC, Haslam PJ, McGrath FP, Keeling MJ. Percutaneous gastrostomy in patients who fail or are unsuitable for Endoscopic gastrostomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 23(4): 279-84,2000. 12. Wasiljew BK, Ujiki GT, beal JM. Feeding gastrostomy. Complications and mortality. Am] Surg; 143:134-5, 1982. 13. Gauderer MWL, Stellato TA Gastrostomies: evoluation, techniques and complications.Curr Probl. Surg.;28:661-719, 1986. 14. Larson DE, Burton DD, Schneder KW. Percutaneous endoscopy indications, success, complications and mortality in 314 consecutive patients. Gastroenterology; 93:48-52, 1987. 15. Hull MA, RawlingsJ, Murray F. Audit of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Lancet; 341:869-72,1993 16. Gottfried EB,Plumser AB, Clair MR. Pneumoperitoneum f