Comparing Outcomes Between "Pull" Versus "Push" Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Acute Care Surgery: Under-Reported Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Incidence of Tube Dislodgement.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) complications are often under-reported in the literature, especially regarding the incidence of tube dislodgement (TD). TD can cause significant morbidity depending on its timing. We compared outcomes between "push" and "pull" PEGs. We hypothesized that push PEGs, because of its T-fasteners and balloon tip, would have a lower incidence of TD and complications compared with pull PEGs. We performed a chart review of our prospectively maintained acute care surgery database for patients who underwent PEG tube placement from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013. Data regarding age, gender, body mass index, indications (trauma versus nontrauma), and complications (including TD) were extracted. Procedure-related complications were classified as either major if patients required an operative intervention or minor if they did not. We compared outcomes between pull PEG and push PEG. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with major complications. During the 4-y study period, 264 patients underwent pull PEGs and 59 underwent push PEGs. Age, gender, body mass index, and indications were similar between the two groups. The overall complications (major and minor) were similar (20% pull versus 22% push, P = 0.61). The incidence of TD was also similar (12% pull versus 9% push, P = 0.49). However, TD associated with major complications was higher in pull PEGs but was not statistically significant (6% pull versus 2% push, P = 0.21). Multiple regression analysis showed that dislodged pull PEG was associated with major complications (odds ratio 29.5; 95% confidence interval, 11.3-76.9; P < 0.001). The incidence of pull PEG TD associated with major complications is under-recognized. Specific measures should be undertaken to help prevent pull PEG TD. IV, therapeutic.

Kulvatunyou N ，Zimmerman SA ，Sadoun M ，Joseph BA ，Friese RS ，Gries LM ，O'Keeffe T ，Tang AL ... -  《-》

Pediatric gastrostomy tubes and techniques: making safer and cleaner choices.

Gastrostomy tube placement is a common procedure that can be accomplished with a variety of techniques, each with its attendant complications. In an effort to standardize practice at our institution, we retrospectively evaluated complications including early dislodgement requiring operative repair, leaks, and granulation tissue to determine the optimal technique. A retrospective cohort study (June 2008-July 2014) evaluating children (<18) receiving gastrostomy tubes was completed. We recorded demographic data, placement technique, and postoperative complications within 120 days. The seven techniques in use at our institution were categorized into three groups: standard pull-type techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs), "push" techniques using transabdominal sutures or T-fasteners for securement of the stomach, and "fascial" techniques using sutures directly from the stomach to the abdominal fascia at the stoma site. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using t test and Kruskal-Wallis tests as appropriate, and outcomes with P < 0.05 were considered significant. Of the 450 patients, 255 (56.7%) were male. Median age and weight at the time of operation were 19.3 months (interquartile range, 6.5-89.6 months) and 9.0 kg (interquartile range, 5.7-17.1 kg) respectively. By technique, 245 patients underwent fascial placement (54.4%), 112 underwent push (24.9 %), and 93 underwent PEG (20.7%). Push and fascial techniques were less likely become dislodged than PEG, with odds ratios (ORs) of 0.14 (confidence interval CI 0.02-0.66) and 0.31 (CI 0.11-0.83), respectively. Fascial techniques had more granulation tissue than either push or PEG pull methods, OR 2.39 (CI 1.20-3.36), and more leakage, OR 2.22 (CI 1.19-4.15). Dislodgement is most likely with PEG techniques. Granulation and leakage are most likely with fascial suture techniques. Push techniques are associated with the lowest complication rate.

Sutherland C ，Carr B ，Biddle KZ ，Jarboe M ，Gadepalli SK ... -  《-》

Contemporary acute care surgery percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement: an extreme bumper height and complications.

Glazer ES ，Kulvatunyou N ，Green DJ ，Gries L ，Joseph B ，O'Keeffe T ，Tang AL ，Wynne JL ，Friese RS ，Rhee PM ... -  《-》

Comparison of 231 patients receiving either "pull-through" or "push" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Köhler G ，Kalcher V ，Koch OO ，Luketina RR ，Emmanuel K ，Spaun G ... -  《-》

To push or to pull? A clinical audit on the efficacy and safety of the pull and push percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in oncological patients.

The peroral "pull" technique and the direct "push" procedure are the two main methods for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Although pull-PEG is generally recommended as the first-line modality, many oncological patients require a push-PEG approach to prevent tumor seeding or overcome tumor-related obstruction. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both PEG procedures in cancer patients. We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive PEG procedures within a tertiary oncological center. Patients were followed up with the hospital databases and National Cancer Registry to assess the technical success rate for PEG placement, the rate of minor and major adverse events (AEs), and 30-day mortality rates. We compared those outcomes between the two PEG techniques. Finally, risk factors for PEG-related adverse events were analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression model adjusted for patients' sex, age, performance status (ECOG), Body Mass Index (BMI), diabetes, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) status (pre-/current-/post-treatment), and type of PEG. We included 1055 PEG procedures (58.7% push-PEG/41.4% pull-PEG) performed in 994 patients between 2014 and 2021 (mean age 62.0 [±10.7] yrs.; 70.2% males; indication: head-and-neck cancer 75.9%/other cancer 24.1%). The overall technical success for PEG placement was 96.5%. Although the "push" technique had a higher rate of all AEs (21.4% vs. 7.1%, Hazard Ratio [HR]  = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.9-4.3, p < 0.001), most of these constituted minor AEs (71.9%), such as tube dislodgement. The methods had no significant difference regarding major AEs and 30-day mortality rates. Previous CRT was associated with an increased risk of major AEs (hazard ratio = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.0-7.2, p = 0.042). The risk of major AEs was comparable between the push- and pull-PEG techniques in cancer patients. Due to frequent tube dislodgement in push-PEG, the pull technique may be more suitable for long-term feeding. Previous CRT increases the risk of major AEs, favoring early ("prophylactic") PEG placement when such treatment is expected.

Kucha P ，Zorniak M ，Szmit M ，Lipczynski R ，Wieszczy-Szczepanik P ，Kapala A ，Wojciechowska U ，Didkowska J ，Rupinski M ，Olesinski T ，Maj T ，Regula J ，Kaminski MF ，Januszewicz W ... -  《-》