Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with T-Fasteners versus "Pull Technique": Analysis of Complications.

 The T-fasteners gastrostomy (T-PEG) has become increasingly popular over recent years as an alternative to the "pull-technique" gastrostomy (P-PEG). This study aimed to compare P-PEG and T-PEG complications.  A retrospective observational study of pediatric patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. P-PEG was performed using the standard Ponsky technique and was replaced after 6 months by a balloon gastrostomy under sedation. T-PEG was performed using three percutaneous T-fasteners (that allow a primary insertion of a balloon gastrostomy). The balloon was replaced by a new one after 6 months without sedation. Complications were recorded.  In total, 146 patients underwent PEG placement, 70 P-PEG and 76 T-PEG. The mean follow-up was 3.9 years (standard deviation = 9.6). Age, weight, and associated comorbidities were comparable (p > 0.05). The overall complications were 17 (24.2%) in the P-PEG group and 16 (21.0%) in the T-PEG group (p > 0.05). P-PEG was associated with more sedation for button replacement (97 vs. 2.6% [p < 0.05]). P-PEG was associated with more early tube dislodgement during the first replacement (7.2 vs. 1.4% [p = 0.092]). Two of the five dislodged gastrostomies in the P-PEG group underwent laparotomy due to peritonitis, whereas the only dislodged gastrostomy in the T-PEG group was solved endoscopically. Altogether, P-PEG was associated with more complications that required urgent endoscopy, laparotomy, or laparoscopy (18.6 vs. 6.6% [p < 0.05]).  P-PEG was associated with more sedation, complications during first button replacement, and complications requiring urgent endoscopy, laparotomy, or laparoscopy compared with T-PEG.

Castrillo A ，García-Martínez L ，Laín A ，Giné C ，Díaz-Hervás M ，López M ... -  《-》

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with T-fasteners obviates the need for emergent replacement after early tube dislodgement.

Timratana P ，El-Hayek K ，Shimizu H ，Kroh M ，Chand B ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Endoscopic rescue of early percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy tube dislodgement.

Juza RM ，Docimo S ，Drexel S ，Sandoval V ，Marks JM ，Pauli EM ... -  《-》

Outcomes of radiologically inserted gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Gastrostomy insertion either via radiological (radiologically inserted gastrostomy, RIG) or endoscopic (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, PEG) approaches are widely practiced throughout Australia. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of inserted tubes and cost evaluation by both methods. A retrospective cohort study conducted on all-cause gastrostomy insertions at a quaternary Australian Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Womens' Hospital (RBWH) between January 2012 and August 2015. Current referral pattern is first-line gastrostomy and second-line radiological insertion. A total of 402 gastrostomy tubes were inserted with a total of 307 PEG tubes and 95 RIG tubes, with follow-up to one calendar year. Mean patient age was 61 years ± 14.2 years with 76% male patients. A total of 84% of patients were head and neck cancer patients; major indications for insertion include prophylaxis (58%), dysphagia (32%) and NBM (2.5%). Patient groups were heterogeneous with varied indications for insertion including prophylaxis, dysphagia, decompression, NBM and treatment side effects. Outcomes measured included the following: complications, premature tube failure prior to expected removal and, overall tube outcome/ disposition. A lower incidence of minor complications was observed with the RIG group than the PEG group without differences in major complications over time. Tube failure due to either blockage or dislodgement was assessed. Multivariate analysis of all-cause dislodgement found 'method of insertion' a predictor of dislodgement with RIG 5.4(OR) times more likely to be dislodged than PEG. Competing risk analysis demonstrates equipment as a significant cause of dislodgement occurring more commonly with RIG than PEG tubes. Tubes were removed more often in the PEG group because a large volume were prophylactic. Tubes were replaced more often in the RIG group, with tube blockage and equipment as causes for tube replacement in this group. Replacements occur either in suite or bedside. Costing data were limited with only 94 patients' costing data qualifying for a limited unit cost evaluation, with radiologically inserted tubes marginally more expensive than tubes inserted endoscopically. Both are safe procedures, with improved techniques; radiologically inserted gastrostomies have an improved profile with respect to dislodgement rates than previously reported in the literature. Radiological tubes remain limited by equipment factors with balloon failure an ongoing issue. Cost analysis was hindered by poor documentation; however, the opportunity cost remains an important advantage of radiological insertion at peripheral sites, increasingly relevant for health service delivery in our geographically vast state.

Cherian P ，Blake C ，Appleyard M ，Clouston J ，Mott N ... -  《-》