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.
Keywords:
Enteral nutrition, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, surgery, gastrostomy, jejunostomy, complication
References
1Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg, 1980; 6: 872-5.
2Ho HS, Ngo H. Gastrostomy for enteral Access. A comparison among placement by laparotomy, laparoscopy, and endoscopy. Surg Endosc, 1999; 13: 991-4.
3Grant JP. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Stamm gastrostomy. Ann Surg, 1988; 207: 598-603.
4Ho CS, Yee ACN, McPherson R. Complications of surgical and percutaneous nonendoscopic gastrostomy: Review of 233 patients. Gastroenterology, 1988; 95: 1206-10.
5Angus F, Burakoff R. The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube: Medical and ethical issues in placement. Am J Gastroenterol, 2003; 98: 272-7.
6Han-Geurts IJM, Lim A, Stijnen T, Bonjer HJ. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc, 2005; 19: 951-7.
7Fingerhut 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.
8Koc 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.
9Hull MA, Rawlings J, Murray FE. et al. Audit of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Lancet, 1993; 341: 869-72.
10Duncan HD, Pearce CB. Enteral feeding. Nasogastric, nasojejunal, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or jejunostomy: its indications and limitations. Postgrad Med J 2002; 78: 198-204.
11Mathus-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.
12Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy- 20 years later: a historical perspective. J Pediatr Surg, 2001; 36: 217-9.
13Park 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.
14Eryilmaz MA, Erden V, Memmi N. et al. Evaluation of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and results. Ulus Travma Derg, 2002;8:26-28.