Journals / Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 4

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A secondary care hospital experience

Pages
210–214
Publication Date
2022-09-04
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)

Our study has shown that PEG is a viable and safe procedure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common enteral feeding method in patients with swallowing disorders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent PEG intervention from January 2019 to June 2021 at the Istanbul Sultanbeyli State Hospital Endoscopy Unit.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our study has shown that PEG is a viable and safe procedure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common enteral feeding method in patients with swallowing disorders. PEG is a minimally invasive procedure, but acute and chronic complications may develop after the procedure. Therefore, in this article, we evaluated PEG interventions that were performed in a secondary care hospital. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent PEG intervention from January 2019 to June 2021 at the Istanbul Sultanbeyli State Hospital Endoscopy Unit. This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05012527). A total of 45 patients’ comorbidities, indications, complications, and 30-day mortality rates were analyzed. Results: The majority of our population was elderly patients, and the mean age of the patients was 74. Most patients had multiple comorbidities such as hypertension, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. The minor complication rate was 24.4%, and the major complication rate was 4.4%. Thirty-day mortality was observed in 18% of this cohort. Conclusion: Before the PEG procedure, the patient’s general condition, the expected time of insufficient food intake, life expectancy, and comorbidities should be carefully examined. Our study has shown that PEG is a viable and safe procedure.

🔖

Cite This Article

DERİCİ, S. T., ERGENÇ, M., UPRAK, T. K. (2022). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A secondary care hospital experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 4, 210–214. https://ajindex.com/articles/423549

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Rahnemai-Azar AA, Rahnemaiazar AA, Naghshizadian R, Kurtz A, Farkas DT. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management. World Journal of Gastroenterology: WJG 2014;20:7739
  2. Pih GY, Na HK, Ahn JY, Jung KW, Kim DH, Lee JH, et al. Risk factors for complications and mortality of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion. BMC Gastroenterol 2018;18:101
  3. Vujasinovic M, Ingre C, Baldaque Silva F, Frederiksen F, Yu J, Elbe P. Complications and outcome of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in a high-volume centre. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology 2019;54:513–8
  4. Volkert D, Chourdakis M, Faxen-Irving G, Frühwald T, Landi F, Suominen MH, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in dementia. Clinical Nutr 2015;34:1052–73
  5. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, Higashiguchi T, Hübner M, Klek S, et al. ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr 2017;36:623–50
  6. Löser C, Aschl G, Hébuterne X, Mathus-Vliegen E, Muscaritoli M, Niv Y, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition– percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005;24:848–61
  7. Arvanitakis M, Gkolfakis P, Despott EJ, Ballarin A, Beyna T, Boeykens K, et al. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients–Part 1: Definitions and indications. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021;53:81–92
  8. Çetin DA, Patmano M. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Single–center experience. Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci 2020;27:84–7
  9. Sözüer E, Akyüz M, Dal F, Talih T, Gök M, Topal U. Our six years experiences about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in surgical endoscopy unit. Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci 2020;27:78–83
  10. Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, Seamon MJ, Lukaszczyk JJ, Martin ND, et al. Complications related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. A comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2007;16:407–18
  11. Gkolfakis P, Arvanitakis M, Despott EJ, Ballarin A, Beyna T, Boeykens K, et al. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients–Part 2: Peri-and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021;53:178–95
  12. Soliman Y, Kurchin A, Devgun S. ‘Re-PEGing’: an endoscopic approach to inadvertent early removal of PEG tube. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect 2020;10:194–8
  13. Kejariwal D, Aravinthan A, Bromley D, Miao Y. Buried bumper syndrome: cut and leave it alone!. Nutr Clin Pract 20