Dergiler / Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2

Our six years experiences about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in surgical endoscopy unit

Sayfa
78–83
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

To reduce such complications, emphasis should be placed on training related to catheter care.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Introduction: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred method of nutrition for patients that are in need of long term enteral feeding.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: Patients that underwent PEG in our clinic between the years 2015 and 2020 were included in this study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:To reduce such complications, emphasis should be placed on training related to catheter care.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2015 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Introduction: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred method of nutrition for patients that are in need of long term enteral feeding. In this study, we aim to convey a six–year experience of a surgical endoscopy unit in the light of the literature. Materials and Methods: Patients that underwent PEG in our clinic between the years 2015 and 2020 were included in this study. Demographic and clinical data, indications, early and late complications, and long term results of the patients were analyzed retrospectively. PEG was employed using the standard pull method. Results: One hundred six patients participated in our study. The age average was 61, and the male sex was predominant (71%). The findings obtained in this study showed that 81.2% of the patients had comorbidities. Eight patients had an abdominal operation history. The most frequent indications were chronic neurological disease (36.8%), prolonged coma after head trauma (11.3%), and head and neck cancers (10.4%). The incidence of catheter–related early complications was observed to be 17.9%, and the most frequent complication was the leakage in the catheter insertion site. The incidence of general complications was observed as early complications ( 30 days) (0.9%), respectively. Catheter dysfunction developed in eight patients during their follow–up examinations. Recurrent medical interventions were performed on five patients. The incidence of catheter–related unplanned arrivals at the hospital was 8.5%. Conclusion: PEG is a safe, minimally invasive, effective, well–tolerated practice with a low incidence of complications and is used in the provision of nutritional support enterally. The most frequent complications are related to the care of the catheter insertion site. To reduce such complications, emphasis should be placed on training related to catheter care.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SÖZÜER, E., AKYÜZ, M., DAL, F., TALİH, T., GÖK, M., TOPAL, U. (2020). Our six years experiences about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in surgical endoscopy unit. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2, 78–83. https://ajindex.com/articles/274466

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Rahnemai-Azar AA, Rahnemaiazar AA, Naghshizadian R, Kurtz A, Farkas DT. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management. WJG 2014; 20:7739–51
  2. Gramlich L, Kichian K, Pinilla J, Rodych NJ, Dhaliwal R, Heyland DK. Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature. Nutrition 2004;20:843–8
  3. Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Early enteral nutrition in acutely ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2001;29:2264–70
  4. Demirci H, Kilciler G, Öztürk K, Kantarcıoglu M, Uygun A, Bagcı S. Our experience in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. 82 Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci Endoscopy Gastrointestinal 2015;23:73–6
  5. Gauderer M. Twenty years of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: origin and evolution of a concept and its expanded applications. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:879–83
  6. Vizhi K, Rao HB, Venu RP Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site infections—Incidence and risk factors. Indian J Gastroenterol 2018;37:103–7
  7. Karaca AS, Ali R, Capar M, Karaca S. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Experience İn A General Surgery Clinic J Clin Anal Med 2015;6:71–4
  8. Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980;15:872–5
  9. Kirby DF, Delegge MH, Fleming CR. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1995;108:1282–301
  10. Pih GY, Na HK, Ahn JY, Jung KW, Kim DH, Lee J, et al. Risk factors for complications and mortality of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion. BMC gastroenterology 2018;18:101
  11. Fortunato JE, Troy AL, Cuffari C, Davis JE, Loza MJ, OlivaHemker M, et al. Outcome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children and young adults. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010;50:390–3
  12. Özgüç H, Gökçe E, Altınel Y, Kırdak T. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy experience in a general surgery clinic. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 2011;27:145–8
  13. Vanis N, Saray A, Gornjakovic S, Mesihovic R. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): retrospective analysis of a 7-year clinical experience. Acta Informatica Medica 2012;20:235–7
  14. Raykher A, Russo L, Schattner M, Schwartz L, Scott B, Shike M. Enteral nutrition support of head and neck cancer patients. Nutr Clin Pract 2007;22:68–73
  15. Min YW, Jang EY, Jung JH, Lee H, Min BH, Lee JH, et al. Comparison between gastrosto