Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy: Procedural and Nutrition Outcomes in a Large Patient Cohort

Safety and efficacy of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement compared with surgical jejunostomy: a tertiary care analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Jejunostomy tube placements provides enteral access for feeding in eligible patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs by mouth. They can be surgically placed laparoscopically (lap-J) or with the use of a conventional open laparotomy approach (open-J). Recently, direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) has emerged as an alternative owing to its low cost and shorter recovery times. We sought to retrospectively compare the procedural success rates and adverse events of these methods.

METHODS

Patients were identified by querying our health system patient database and the departmental database of patients who underwent DPEJ. The patients were divided into 3 cohorts based on the procedure: DPEJ, lap-J, or open-J. Patient age and body mass index, procedural success rate, and adverse event rate were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients met inclusion criteria (65 DPEJ, 111 lap-J, and 25 open-J). Procedural success rates were similar among the 3 groups (DPEJ 96.9%, lap-J 99.1%, open-J 100%; P = .702). Rates of infection and bleeding were also similar among the 3 groups. There were no cases of GI perforation. Tube dysfunction for any reason that required complete removal or replacement within 90 days occurred more often in the surgical groups than in the DPEJ group (DPEJ 0%, lap-J 35.1%, open-J 40.0%; P < .001). This was driven largely by increased rates of tube clogging and tube dislodgement in the surgical groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ is a safe and effective alternative to surgical jejunostomy in eligible patients and may be associated with decreased adverse event rates at 90 days.

Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy Placement Compared With Surgical and Radiologic Jejunostomy Placement: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We compared the safety and outcomes of percutaneous jejunostomy tubes placed endoscopically (PEJ), fluoroscopically by interventional radiology (IR-jejunostomy), and open jejunostomy placed surgically (surgical jejunostomy).

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a jejunostomy from 2016 to 2019. Selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEJ, IR-jejunostomy, and surgical jejunostomy. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6022 (65.2±9.8 y) surgical jejunostomy patients, 3715 (63.6±11.0 y) endoscopic jejunostomy patients, and 14,912 (64.8±11.6 y) IR-jejunostomy patients were identified. Compared with surgery, PEJ patients were 32% less likely to experience postprocedure complications (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.58-0.79, P<0.001) while IR-jejunostomy patients were 17% less likely to experience complications (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94, P<0.001); test of proportion showed that endoscopy had significantly fewer total adverse events compared with IR (P<0.001). For individual complications, compared with surgery, the odds of intestinal perforation using PEJ and IR, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI: 0.14-0.49, P<0.001) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21-0.47, P<0.001), for postprocedure infection 0.32 (95% CI: 0.20-0.50; P<0.001) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.83; P=0.001); and for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56-0.91; P=0.005) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61-0.91; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic placement of percutaneous jejunostomy tubes (PEJ) in inpatients is associated with significantly lower risks of adverse events and mortality compared with IR and surgical jejunostomy.

Safety and efficacy of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy placement in patients with previous upper gastrointestinal resection: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous jejunal enteral access can be obtained with percutaneous endoscopic gastric jejunostomy (PEGJ) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) tubes. PEGJ may not be feasible in patients with previous gastric resection (PGR) and DPEJ may be the only option. Our aim is to determine if DPEJ tubes can be placed successfully in patients with history of gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and if success rates are comparable to DPEJ or PEGJ in those without prior GI surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed all tube placements performed from 2010 to present. Procedures were performed using a pediatric colonoscope. Previous upper GI surgery was defined as PGR or esophagectomy with gastric pull-up. Adverse events (AEs) were graded per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. Mild events included unplanned medical consultation or hospitalization <3 days, and moderate events included repeat endoscopy without surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Successful placement rates were high regardless of GI surgical history. Patients receiving a DPEJ with a history of GI surgery were significantly less likely to experience an AE compared with those receiving DPEJ with no history and compared with PEGJ patients with or without a history.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ placement in patients with previous upper GI surgery has very high success rate. It is associated with lower AE rates than patients receiving DPEJ without previous gastric surgery, or PEGJ regardless of previous gastric surgery. Patients with a history of upper GI surgery requiring enteral access may benefit from DPEJ over PEGJ placement considering its very high success rate and lower incidence of AEs.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Chinese expert consensus on prevention and intervention for the elderly with malnutrition (2022)

Malnutrition is a state of altered body composition and body cell mass due to inadequate intake or utilization of energy or nutrients, leading to physical and mental dysfunction and impaired clinical outcomes. As one of the most common geriatric syndromes, malnutrition in the elderly is a significant risk factor for poor clinical outcomes, causing a massive burden on medical resources and society. The risk factors for malnutrition in the elderly are diverse and include demographics, chronic diseases, and psychosocial factors. Presently, recommendations for the prevention and intervention of malnutrition in the elderly are not clear or consistent in China. This consensus is based on the latest global evidence and multiregional clinical experience in China, which aims to standardize the prevention and intervention of malnutrition in the elderly in China and improve the efficacy of clinical practice and the prognosis of elderly patients.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement in patients post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, a single tertiary care center experience

Background and study aims Obesity prevalence continues to rise in the United States with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery being one of the most common bariatric procedures. With this trend, more patients with altered upper gastrointestinal (UGI) anatomy have required endoscopic intervention including direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) placement. We aimed to assess the safety and success rates of DPEJ in RYGB patients. Patients and methods All patients at a tertiary care referral center who underwent DPEJ during an 8-year period were queried from a prospectively maintained registry of all enteroscopy procedures. Duplicate cases and altered upper UGI anatomy subtypes other than RYGB were excluded. The final cohort consisted of two groups: RYGB vs native anatomy (NA). Demographic, procedural, readmission, follow-up, and complication data were recorded. Comparative analysis was performed. Results Seventy-two patients were included where 28 had RYGB and 44 had NA. Both groups had similar baseline and pre-procedure data. Procedure success rate was 89 % in RYGB patients and 98 % in NA patients ( P  = 0.13). There were no intraprocedural complications. Early and late postprocedural complication rates were similar between the groups (both 4 % vs 7 %). Average follow-up times in the RYGB and NA groups were 12.97 ± 9.35 and 13.44 ± 9.21 months, respectively. Although readmission rates at 1 and 6 months were higher in the NA versus the RYGB group (21 % vs 7 % and 25 % vs 15 %), these differences were not significant. Conclusions DPEJ can be successful and safely placed in RYGB patients with no significant difference in procedure success, complication, or readmission rates when compared to control.

Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: when, how, and when to avoid it

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review summarizes current evidence regarding the indications, contraindications, and technical aspects of placing a direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ), as well as procedure-related and patient-related outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

DPEJ is indicated for patients who require long-term (>4 weeks) jejunal nutrition due to existing altered foregut anatomy (e.g., previous gastrectomy) or because the gastric route is not an option (e.g., due to high risk of aspiration, intolerance, gastroparesis). DPEJ may also offer decompression of the gastrointestinal tract in cases of small bowel obstruction (e.g., peritoneal carcinomatosis). Absolute contraindications include active peritonitis, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and ongoing bowel ischemia. Technically, the 'pull' technique using a paediatric colonoscope will be sufficient for most cases. Recent publications demonstrate high rates of technical success (>85%), while patient outcomes do not differ among patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and those undergoing DPEJ. Obesity is a risk factor for technical failure, while age more than 80 years, diabetes mellitus, and ongoing inflammatory status may be considered risk factors for DPEJ-associated mortality.

SUMMARY

DPEJ is a safe and efficacious modality for long-term jejunal nutrition with an acceptable risk of mild complications. Careful patient selection and respect of preprocedural, periprocedural, and postprocedural precautions are of the utmost importance to ensuring a favourable outcome.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) technical success and outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic methods of delivering uninterrupted feeding to the jejunum include direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) or PEG with jejunal extension (PEG-J), validated from small individual studies. We aim to perform a meta-analysis to assess their effectiveness and safety in a variety of clinical scenarios. Methods  Major databases were searched until June 2021. Efficacy outcomes included technical and clinical success, while safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and malfunction rates. We assessed heterogeneity using I ² and classic fail-safe to assess bias. Results  29 studies included 1874 patients (983 males and 809 females); mean age of 60 ± 19 years. Pooled technical and clinical success rates with DPEJ were 86.6 % (CI, 82.1-90.1, I ² 73.1) and 96.9 % (CI, 95.0-98.0, I ² 12.7). The pooled incidence of malfunction, major and minor AEs with DPEJ were 11 %, 5 %, and 15 %. Pooled technical and clinical success for PEG-J were 94.4 % (CI, 85.5-97.9, I ² 33) and 98.7 % (CI, 95.5-99.6, I ²  < 0.001). The pooled incidence of malfunction, major and minor AEs with DPEJ were 24 %, 1 %, and 25 %. Device-assisted DPEJ performed better in altered gastrointestinal anatomy. First and second attempts were 87.6 % and 90.2 %. Conclusions  DPEJ and PEG-J are safe and effective procedures placed with high fidelity with comparable outcomes. DPEJ was associated with fewer tube malfunction and failure rates; however, it is technically more complex and not standardized, while PEG-J had higher placement rates. The use of balloon enteroscopy was found to enhance DPEJ performance.

Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Patients After Partial Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study to Assess the Technical Feasibility of Postsurgical Remnant Stomach Access

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical feasibility of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy in patients after partial gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 15 consecutive gastrectomized patients with attempted percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy at our institution between April 2014 and March 2021. When the stomach was sufficiently insufflated to distend below the left anterior subcostal margin, percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with gastropexy was conventionally performed by the Seldinger technique. When the stomach was still highly positioned and/or overlaid by the other organs, some adjunctive maneuvers, such as hydro-displacement, intragastric balloon support, or cephalad oblique puncture or left intercostal puncture, were employed as modified gastrostomy. Ultrasonography or x-ray or computed tomography fluoroscopy was used for imaging guidance during the gastric puncture. Adequate tube placement was defined as technical success. Technical details, clinical outcomes, and complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

One patient underwent percutaneous radiologic jejunostomy instead of gastrostomy because safe gastric access could not be ensured. Seven patients underwent conventional gastrostomy; the other seven underwent modified gastrostomy with no gastropexy. The technical success rate was 100% (7/7) in the conventional group and 85.7% (6/7) in the modified group. The stomach was punctured under x-ray or computed tomography fluoroscopy for conventional gastrostomy. In contrast, the combination of various modalities was used for modified gastrostomy except for one failed case with unintentional transhepatic access. During a median follow-up of 108 days, no major complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

The adequate combination of multimodal imaging guidance and technical modifications could secure radiological creation of gastrostomy for the postsurgical stomach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies

BACKGROUND

In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs) are an alternative method for long-term palliative decompression. This study performed a scoping review to determine outcomes with PTEG in advanced malignancies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to include all studies that reported the clinical results of PTEGs for malignancy. No language, national, or publication status restrictions were used.

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 relevant studies with a total of 340 patients. In 11 studies, standard PTEGs were inserted with a rupture-free balloon's placement into the mouth or nose and esophageal puncture under fluoroscopy or ultrasound, followed by a guidewire into the stomach with placement of a single-lumen tube. Of 340 patients, 65 (19.1%) had minor complications, and 5 (2.1%) had significant complications, including bleeding and severe aspiration pneumonia. Of 171 patients, 169 with PTEGs (98.8%) reported relief of nasal discomfort from NGT and alleviation of obstructive symptoms. The one randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher quality of life with PTEGs than with NGTs.

CONCLUSIONS

When decompression for advanced malignancy is technically not feasible with a gastrostomy tube, the PTEG is a viable, safe option for palliation. The PTEG is associated with lower significant complication rates than the gastrostomy tube and significantly higher patient-derived outcomes than the NGT.

Growing use of home enteral nutrition: a great tool in nutrition practice toolbox

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Home enteral nutrition (HEN) is a well-established practical nutrition therapy tool that is typically managed by an interdisciplinary team. Prevalence of HEN is increasing across the globe given significant evidence for utility, feasibility, efficacy, safety, and reliability of HEN in helping patients meeting their nutrition needs. The current review highlights the growing use of HEN in the context of what is novel in the field including trends in HEN practice with regards to tubes and connectors, feeding formula and real food blends, and common complications. The review also highlights that the use of HEN is expected to expand further over coming years emphasizing the need for national consensus recommendations and guidelines for HEN management.

RECENT FINDINGS

The growing use of HEN has always been parallel to adoption of holistic definitions and concept of malnutrition in clinical nutrition practice and more understanding of the need for malnutrition risk stratification, meeting unmet needs in practice and addressing challenges that lead to suboptimal enteral nutrition.

SUMMARY

Research and advancements in technology as well as in tube feeding formula industry have led to the development of more solutions and have helped identify and implement best HEN practices.

Transgastric Feeding Tube Insertion into the Jejunum after Esophagectomy: Direct Puncture of the Gastric Conduit

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided direct puncture of a reconstructed gastric conduit after esophagectomy for performing a percutaneous radiologic gastrojejunostomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2014 and 2020, 26 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer (mean age, 70 years ± 8.3) with a total of 27 attempts of percutaneous radiologic gastrojejunostomy for postsurgical enteral feeding at the National Cancer Center Hospital were included in this study. One patient required a repeat procedure because of persistent anorexia after the removal of the first tube. All patients except 1 had a gastric conduit reconstructed via a retrosternal route. All procedures were performed under local anesthesia with moderate sedation and analgesia. A gastric conduit was directly punctured with an 18-gauge needle under ultrasonographic guidance, followed by feeding tube insertion into the proximal jejunum. Technical details of the procedures, technical success (defined as adequate tube placement), procedure-related complications, and clinical outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean procedure time was 25 minutes ± 15, and technical success was obtained in every attempt. Minor complications included mild local pain (n = 7), unintentional tube removal (n = 2), local abdominal wall hematoma (n = 1), and superficial cellulitis (n = 1); no major complications were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 118.3 days ± 85.8, 13 patients resumed oral intake, and the feeding tube could be removed in 4 patients. No procedure-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The US-guided direct puncture technique is feasible for percutaneous gastrojejunal tube insertion in postsurgical patients with esophageal cancer with gastric conduit reconstruction.

Prognostic outcomes after direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy in elderly patients: comparison with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is an alternative method of enteral feeding to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Although long-term outcomes of PEG have been reported, little is known regarding the outcomes of DPEJ.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including 115 and 651 consecutive attempts of DPEJ and PEG, respectively, in a total of 766 elderly patients between April 2004 and March 2019. Patients' clinical background, procedural and long-term outcomes, survival analysis, and cause of death were analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful placement rates were 93.9% and 97.1% for DPEJ and PEG, respectively. There was no significant difference in procedure-related adverse events (AEs) between the DPEJ and PEG groups. Rates of pneumonia, vomiting, and upper GI bleeding were significantly lower, whereas those of fistula enlargement and ileus were significantly higher in the DPEJ group as long-term AEs. The median survival periods were 694 and 734 days for DPEJ and PEG, respectively, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age 80 years old or older, C-reactive protein level of 1.0 mg/dL or higher, and the presence of diabetes were independent risk factors for mortality after DPEJ. Respiratory tract infection was the primary cause of death in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ is considered a safe and feasible method of access for enteral feeding as well as PEG. Although the survival period after DPEJ may be expected to be as long as that with PEG, DPEJ-specific AEs should be kept in mind on long-term feeding.

Per-oral image guided gastrojejunostomy insertion for levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in Parkinson's disease is safe and may be advantageous

BACKGROUND

Procedural aspects and complications of gastrojejunostomy insertion are important considerations in the use of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel therapy (LCIG) and may limit uptake. We describe our experience of using per-oral image guided gastrojejunostomy (PIG-J) which avoids the need for endoscopy and routine sedation in percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG-J) and allows more secure tube placement than radiologically inserted gastrojejunostomy techniques.

METHODS

We describe a case series of 32 patients undergoing PIG-J insertion for LCIG therapy in a single centre. Under local anaesthetic, a fluoroscopy-guided gastric puncture allows access for the guidewire which is then used to pull through the gastrostomy tube allowing for secure fixation, followed by placement of the gastrojejunal extension.

RESULTS

Between December 2015 to April 2020, 32/34 patients referred for PIG-J underwent this procedure successfully, 2 cases unsuccessful due to technical considerations. One patient developed delirium following successful implantation. Ten patients (31%) required a replacement tube due to blockage or displacement within the first 12 months of placement, including 2 patients who needed more than one replacement. Minor complications occurred in 10 other patients (31%), including infection (9 patients); a small haematoma not requiring intervention who later developed an infection (1 patient); and peri-stomal acid leakage (1 patient).

CONCLUSION

In summary, PIG-J insertion is safe with a similar complication rate to traditional PEG-J, well tolerated and effective for use in LCIG administration. This may widen access to LCIG for PD patients who may not be suitable or unable to tolerate PEG-J.

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer ("push") technique for PEG placement in cases where the "pull" method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed "blindly" at the patient's bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 - 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 - 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.