Surgical endoscopy · 2014
Comparison of 231 patients receiving either "pull-through" or "push" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное 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.
Köhler Gernot, Kalcher Veronika, Koch Oliver O, Luketina Ruzica-R, Emmanuel Klaus, Spaun Georg
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be performed as a direct stomach puncture, known as Seldinger technique ("push") or a thread pulling method ("pull"). The aim of this study was to compare the final results deriving from both application methods.
METHODS: Data of all pull-through-PEG and push-PEG applications, which had been carried out in our department from 2009 to 2012, were analyzed and compared retrospectively. Data collection included patients' demographics, indications, comorbidities, peri-interventional chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and divided in early- and late-term complications (before and after 10 days after PEG insertion).
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients received a PEG. Of these, 131 (56.7 %) were treated with pull-through-PEGs and 100 (43.3 %) with the push-PEG method. Overall, in 61 of 231 (26.4 %) patients, a complication was documented and 37 of 61 (60.6 %) were assigned to Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Only 5 of 231 patients (2.2 %) required a re-intervention or surgical treatment under general anesthesia. The overall complication rate was significantly increased by the type of push-PEG tube used (push 33/100 = 33 vs. pull 28/131 = 21.4 %, p = 0.047). A dislocation of the tube was noticed in 5/131 (3.8 %) cases of pull-PEGs and 12/100 (12 %) cases of push PEGs (p = 0.018). An occlusion of the PEG also occurred significantly more frequent in connection with the push-PEG (10/100 = 10 vs. 1/131 = 0.8 %; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Both PEG techniques are safe and well established. Push PEG showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications, dislocations, and occlusions. The decision which PEG tube should be used depends on individual conditions with preference of push-PEGs in patients with head, neck, and esophageal cancer.
METHODS: Data of all pull-through-PEG and push-PEG applications, which had been carried out in our department from 2009 to 2012, were analyzed and compared retrospectively. Data collection included patients' demographics, indications, comorbidities, peri-interventional chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and divided in early- and late-term complications (before and after 10 days after PEG insertion).
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients received a PEG. Of these, 131 (56.7 %) were treated with pull-through-PEGs and 100 (43.3 %) with the push-PEG method. Overall, in 61 of 231 (26.4 %) patients, a complication was documented and 37 of 61 (60.6 %) were assigned to Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Only 5 of 231 patients (2.2 %) required a re-intervention or surgical treatment under general anesthesia. The overall complication rate was significantly increased by the type of push-PEG tube used (push 33/100 = 33 vs. pull 28/131 = 21.4 %, p = 0.047). A dislocation of the tube was noticed in 5/131 (3.8 %) cases of pull-PEGs and 12/100 (12 %) cases of push PEGs (p = 0.018). An occlusion of the PEG also occurred significantly more frequent in connection with the push-PEG (10/100 = 10 vs. 1/131 = 0.8 %; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Both PEG techniques are safe and well established. Push PEG showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications, dislocations, and occlusions. The decision which PEG tube should be used depends on individual conditions with preference of push-PEGs in patients with head, neck, and esophageal cancer.