Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2

Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: One surgeon experience

Pages
148–151
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

PEG is the first choice for long-term enteral nutrition in appropriate patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: We aimed to present our experience and findings in patients which in we applied percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion because of the oral nutritional deficiency.Material and Methods: The data of 41 patients who had PEG tube insertion between 2014 and 2018 years in the General Surgery Clinic of Medicine Faculty of Ordu University were evaluated retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The indications, complications, mortality and short-term outcomes of the patients were analyzed.Results: 43 patients underwent gastroscopy due to insertion of PEG.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:PEG is the first choice for long-term enteral nutrition in appropriate patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to present our experience and findings in patients which in we applied percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion because of the oral nutritional deficiency.Material and Methods: The data of 41 patients who had PEG tube insertion between 2014 and 2018 years in the General Surgery Clinic of Medicine Faculty of Ordu University were evaluated retrospectively. The indications, complications, mortality and short-term outcomes of the patients were analyzed.Results: 43 patients underwent gastroscopy due to insertion of PEG. In 41(95.3%) patients, PEG insertion was successful. In 2(4.7%) patients, PEG insertion failed due to obesity. 16(39%) of the PEG patients were males and 25 (61%) were females. The mean age was 77.68 ± 13.9 (20-94) years. PEG indications were chronic neurological disease in 22 (53.6%) patients, cerebrovascular disease in 15 (36.6%) patients and malignancy in 4 (9.8%) patients. Minor complications in 11(26.8%) patients and major complications in 2 (4.9%) patients were observed. 10 (24.4%) of the complications were in the early period and 3 (7.3%) were in the late period. During the follow up, the PEG tube in 3 (7.3%) patients was pull out. No mortality due to PEG insertion was observed. During the mean follow-up period of 9.37 ± 7.8 months, 14 (34.1%) of the PEG-treated patients died due to their primary disease.Conclusions: PEG tube insertion is an easy method with the low rates of the complication and mortality in the patients with poor oral intake who have a functional gastrointestinal system. PEG is the first choice for long-term enteral nutrition in appropriate patients.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDEMİR, Ö., AKALIN, C., CİNAR, H. (2022). Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: One surgeon experience. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2, 148–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/447412

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Drover JW, et al. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2003;27:355-73
  2. Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980;15:872-5
  3. Roche V. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Clinical care of PEG tubes in older adults. Geriatrics 2003;58:22-6, 28-9
  4. Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW, Stellato TA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Review of 150 cases. Arch Surg 1983;118:913-4
  5. Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donelly MT, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous gastrostomy and nasogastric feding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ 1996;312:13-16
  6. Kirby DF, DeLegge MH, Fleming CR. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1995;108:1282-301
  7. Russell TR, Brotman M, Norris F. Percutaneous gastrostomy. A new simplified and cost-effective technique. Am J Surg 1984;148:132-7
  8. Campoli PM, Cardoso DM, Turchi MD, et al. Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 435 cases. BMC Gastroenterol 2009;9:48
  9. Löser C, Aschl G, Hebuterne X, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition-Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005;24:848-61
  10. Yuruker S, Koca B, Karabicak I, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: technical problems, complications, and management. Indian J Surg 2015;77:1159-64
  11. Löser C. Clinical aspects of long-term enteral nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). J Nutr Health Aging 2000;4:47-50
  12. Eleftheriadis E, Kotzampassi K. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy after abdominal surgery. Surg Endosc 2001;15:213-6
  13. Foutch PG, Talbert GA, Waring JP, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with prior abdominal surgery: virtues of the safe tract. Am J Gastroenterol 1988;83:147-50
  14. Fortunato JE, Cuffari C. Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2011;13:293-9
  15. Fröhlich T, Richter M, Carbon R, et al. Review article: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in infants and children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31:788-801
  16. Srinivasan R, Irvine T, Dalzell M. Indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and procedure-related outcome. J Pediatr Gastroentero