Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2013
Feasibility of the cut-and-push method for removing large-caliber soft percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy devices.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Agha Adnan, AlSaudi Dib, Furnari Manuele, Abdulhadi Ali Mamdouh M, Morched Chakik Rafaat, Alsaudi Islam, Savarino Vincenzo, Giannini Edoardo G
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the method of choice for long-term nutrition in patients with longstanding eating difficulties due to pathological entities that impair swallowing. The feeding catheters are designed to be removed by external traction or by endoscopy.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of the cut-and-push method as a possible safe alternative to the pullout method for removal of soft PEG devices with a large caliber.
METHODS: Patients with 20 French (Fr) or larger soft PEG system were enrolled for PEG removal by the cut-and-push technique. The replacement catheters were 2 Fr larger than the original ones. Patients were observed at 24 and 72 hours via home nursing care and then weekly for 1 month for signs of intestinal obstruction, tube leakage, or blockage.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (52 men; mean age 67 years) underwent the procedure: 42 due to leakage and 37 due to blockage. Mean time before tube removal was 4.8 months (range, 3-8). PEG devices were 20 Fr and 24 Fr in 57 (72.2%) and 22 (27.8%) cases, respectively. Collection of the inner component from stool was reported within 48 hours in 63 cases (80%). No cases of intestinal obstruction or other severe adverse events due to the inner component being eliminated throughout the intestine were observed in any patient during the study.
CONCLUSIONS: The cut-and-push method employed for removal of a soft PEG tube with a large caliber seems to be safe and can be performed when removal by external traction may determine the occurrence of peristomal complications or jeopardize PEG replacement.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of the cut-and-push method as a possible safe alternative to the pullout method for removal of soft PEG devices with a large caliber.
METHODS: Patients with 20 French (Fr) or larger soft PEG system were enrolled for PEG removal by the cut-and-push technique. The replacement catheters were 2 Fr larger than the original ones. Patients were observed at 24 and 72 hours via home nursing care and then weekly for 1 month for signs of intestinal obstruction, tube leakage, or blockage.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (52 men; mean age 67 years) underwent the procedure: 42 due to leakage and 37 due to blockage. Mean time before tube removal was 4.8 months (range, 3-8). PEG devices were 20 Fr and 24 Fr in 57 (72.2%) and 22 (27.8%) cases, respectively. Collection of the inner component from stool was reported within 48 hours in 63 cases (80%). No cases of intestinal obstruction or other severe adverse events due to the inner component being eliminated throughout the intestine were observed in any patient during the study.
CONCLUSIONS: The cut-and-push method employed for removal of a soft PEG tube with a large caliber seems to be safe and can be performed when removal by external traction may determine the occurrence of peristomal complications or jeopardize PEG replacement.