Journals / Ulusal Cerrahi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4

Our experience on feeding ostomies

Beslenme amaçlı ostomi deneyimimiz

Pages
200–204
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)

Conclusion: In conclusion, PEG procedure has some advantages such as simplicity, low complication rates, lower cost, long term enteral nutrition.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The aim of the present study is to assess patient's profiles and complications related to the tube placement in patients undergoing Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy and surgical feeding ostomies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The retrospective data of 114 consecutive hospitalized patients who underwent enteral feeding ostomy procedures was evaluated by dividing patients into two separate groups as Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Group and Surgery Group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In conclusion, PEG procedure has some advantages such as simplicity, low complication rates, lower cost, long term enteral nutrition.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonlar · Gastrostomi · Jejunostomi

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study is to assess patient's profiles and complications related to the tube placement in patients undergoing Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy and surgical feeding ostomies. Materials and Methods: The retrospective data of 114 consecutive hospitalized patients who underwent enteral feeding ostomy procedures was evaluated by dividing patients into two separate groups as Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Group and Surgery Group. Results: Of the 114 patients, 57 patients underwent surgical feeding ostomy procedures, and other 57 underwent Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy. The mean age of the patients requiring surgical ostomy was greater than that of the patients with Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy. All procedures in the surgical group were performed in the operating theater, but procedures in the endoscopy group were performed in intensive care unit (61.5 %), endoscopy suit (34.6 %), or patient wards (3.8 %). The number of patients having cancer in the surgical ostomy group was higher than the Endoscopy group significantly, p<0.001. On the contrary, 93 % of the patients in the Endoscopy group had neurologic problems. Total complication rates in PEG group, surgical gastrostomy and jejunostomy groups were 26.3 %, 25 % and 24.3 %, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, PEG procedure has some advantages such as simplicity, low complication rates, lower cost, long term enteral nutrition. For that reason, recently, there is an increase in use of PEG procedure. However, the situation in which the use of PEG is impossible, surgical enteral tube placement techniques are still valid alternatives.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı perkutan endoskopik yöntemle yada la parotomi ile beslenme tüpü yerleştirilen olguların karakteristiklerini ve tüp yerleştirilmesine bağlı gelişen komplikasyonları incelemektir. Durum Değerlendirmesi: Günümüzde enteral beslenme ihtiyacı olan hastaların artması enteral beslenme tüpü uygulamasınında yaygınlaşmasına neden olmuştur. Tüp yerleştirme tekniğinin seçiminde hasta profillerinin ve olabilecek komplikasyonların bilinmesi beslenme desteğinin verilebilmesi için önemlidir. Yöntem: Hastanede yatan ve enteral beslenme tüpü yerleştirilmiş ardışık 114 hastanın retrospektif toplanan verileri endoskopik ve cerrahi yöntemle yerleştirilmiş olgular olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılarak incelendi. Bulgular: Perkutan Endoskopik Gastrostomi uygulaması ile 57, cerrahi ostomi uygulaması ile 57 hastaya olmak üzere toplam 114 enteral beslenme tüpü yerleştirilmiştir. Cerrahi yöntemlerin uygulandığı grubun ortalama yaşı, Endoskopik gastrostomi uygulanan gruba göre belirgin olarak yüksek bulundu, p< 0.05. Cerrahi gruptaki bütün operasyonlar ameliyathanede yapılmış iken, Endoskopik Gastrostomi uygulamaları yoğun bakımlarda (% 61.5), endoskopi ünitesinde (% 34.6), ya da hasta kovuşlarında (% 3.8) yapılmıştır. Cerrahi ostomi yapılan grupta kanserli hasta sayısının belirgin olarak yüksek bulunduğu görüldü, p< 0.001. Aksine endoskopi grubunda ise olguların çoğu (% 93) nörolojik problemleri olan hastalardı. Toplam komplikasyon oranları PEG grubunda % 26.3, cerrahi gastrostomi grubunda % 25 ve cerrahi jejunostomi grubunda % 24.3 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, PEG uygulaması basit oluşu, düşük komplikasyon oranı, düşük maliyet, uzun süreli entral nutrisyon sağlaması gibi avantajlara sahiptir. Bu nedenle, son zamanlarda PEG uygulamalarında bir artış vardır. Bununla beraber, PEG uygulaması mümkün olmayan durumlarda, cerrahi olarak enteral tüp yerleştirme teknikleri hala geçerli alternatiflerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIRDAK, T., ÖZGÜÇ, H., KESKİN, M., İÇCİMEN, R., GİRGİN, N. K., KIYICI, M., KORUN, N., KILIÇTURGAY, S. (2008). Our experience on feeding ostomies. Ulusal Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4, 200–204. https://ajindex.com/articles/325598

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg, 1980; 6: 872-5
  2. Ho HS, Ngo H. Gastrostomy for enteral Access. A comparison among placement by laparotomy, laparoscopy, and endoscopy. Surg Endosc, 1999; 13: 991-4
  3. Grant JP. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Stamm gastrostomy. Ann Surg, 1988; 207: 598-603
  4. Ho CS, Yee ACN, McPherson R. Complications of surgical and percutaneous nonendoscopic gastrostomy: Review of 233 patients. Gastroenterology, 1988; 95: 1206-10
  5. Angus F, Burakoff R. The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube: Medical and ethical issues in placement. Am J Gastroenterol, 2003; 98: 272-7
  6. Han-Geurts IJM, Lim A, Stijnen T, Bonjer HJ. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc, 2005; 19: 951-7
  7. Fingerhut LA, Cox CH, Warner M. International comparative analysis of injury mortality. Findings from the ICE on injury statistics. International Collaborative Effort on Injury Statistics. Adv Data, 1998; 303: 1-20
  8. Koc D, Gercek A, Gencosmanoglu R, Tozun N. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in the neurosurgical intensive care unit: complications and outcome. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2007;31:517-20
  9. Hull MA, Rawlings J, Murray FE. et al. Audit of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Lancet, 1993; 341: 869-72
  10. Duncan HD, Pearce CB. Enteral feeding. Nasogastric, nasojejunal, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or jejunostomy: its indications and limitations. Postgrad Med J 2002; 78: 198-204
  11. Mathus-Vliegen LMH, Koning H. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy: a critical reapprasial of patient selection, tube function and the feasibility of nutritional support during extended follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 746-54
  12. Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy- 20 years later: a historical perspective. J Pediatr Surg, 2001; 36: 217-9
  13. Park RHR, Allison MC, Lang J. et al. Randomised comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia. BMJ, 1992; 304: 1406-9
  14. Eryilmaz MA, Erden V, Memmi N. et al. Evaluation of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and results. Ulus Travma Derg, 2002;8:26-28.