The introducer technique is the optimal method for placing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in head and neck cancer patients

Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices

Gastrostomy tube placement is a procedure that achieves enteral access for nutrition, decompression, and medication administration. Preprocedural evaluation and selection of patients is necessary to provide optimal benefit and reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Appropriate indications, contraindications, ethical considerations, and comorbidities of patients referred for gastrostomy placement should be weighed and balanced. Additionally, endoscopist should consider either a transoral or transabdominal approach is appropriate, and radiologic or surgical gastrostomy tube placement is needed. However, medical history, physical examination, and imaging prior to the procedure should be considered to tailor the appropriate approach and reduce the risk of AEs.

Feasibility, safety and outcome of endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with esophageal cancer

Introduction

Background and aims: esophageal cancer (EC) is an important health problem worldwide with high morbidity and mortality. EC patients are likely to develop malnutrition. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding in EC cancer, and to identify risk factors associated with poor prognosis. Methods: a retrospective observational study was performed using records from EC patients referred for PEG. Age, gender, cancer histologic subtype, indication for gastrostomy, and mortality data were recorded. NRS 2002, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin, serum albumin, transferrin and total cholesterol were collected at the day of PEG. An association between anthropometric, clinical and laboratorial data with patient survival was assessed. Results: data were obtained for forty-one EC patients (36 men and 5 women) aged 39-88 years (mean, 62 years). Gastrostomy was possible in all patients referred to PEG (27 patients selected for curative treatment and 14 patients for palliative nutrition). No major complications occurred. Mean survival after PEG was 18.1 months, and mortality rate at 3 months was 31.7 %. Most patients (34; 82.9 %) died under PEG feeding. Mean BMI was 21.3 kg/m2 and 14 patients (34.1 %) patients had low BMI. Serum albumin, transferrin and total cholesterol were low in 10 (24.4 %), 20 (48.8 %) and 18 (43.9 %) patients, respectively. Higher BMI (R = 0.30), serum albumin (R = 0.41) and transferrin (R = 0.47) tended to be positively correlated with survival (p < 0.005). Conclusions: PEG is a feasible and safe technique for enteral feeding in EC patients. Higher BMI, serum albumin and transferrin levels at admission predict a better outcome. Enteral feeding through PEG should be considered early in EC patients due to their higher risk of malnutrition, which is associated with shorter survival.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Surgical Gastrostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Introducer Technique in Patients with Upper Aerodigestive Malignancies: A Single-Center Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies inevitably carries a risk of stomal metastasis that could be avoided by the direct insertion of the gastrostomy tube through the abdomen. This study compared the efficacy and safety between surgical gastrostomy (SG) and Introducer PEG in patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies undergoing SG or Introducer PEG. Procedure data, postprocedural clinical outcomes and 30-day mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 99 patients were feasible to analysis: 53 were in the SG group, and 46 were in the Introducer PEG group. The SG group had a higher incidence of (in-hospital) major complications [28.3% VS 4.3%, p = 0.002], a longer procedure duration [52.02 ± 21.30 VS 21.46 ± 8.22 min, p < 0.001], higher pain scores at 24 h [median (interquartile range, IQR); 5(3-8) VS 1(0-5), p < 0.001] and longer length of hospitalization (LOH) [median (IQR); 5(4-6) days VS 3(2-4) days, p < 0.001)]. In-hospital (3.8% VS 0%, p = 0.493) and 30-day mortality (17.0% VS 13.0%, p = 0.586) were not different between the two groups. In univariate analysis, high BMI, anemia (hemoglobin <11 g/dL), normal nutritional status (serum albumin >3 g/dL) and procedural type were found to be predicting factors for complications. Procedural type (Introducer PEG) was an independent factor for major complications in multivariate analysis [OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.61, p= 0.011].

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies, Introducer PEG was associated with lower rate of (in-hospital) major complications, faster operative time, lower pain scores and shorter LOH.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER

TCTR20181220004.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using a novel large-caliber introducer technique kit: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using the introducer technique is not only useful in patients with upper digestive tract stenosis but has been shown to reduce peristomal infection. In this study, we evaluated the safety and utility of a novel large-caliber introducer PEG kit (using 20 Fr size tube) compared with a push kit of similar size.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and thirty-six patients who received PEG at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, laboratory biomarkers, hemodynamic changes, postoperative adverse events and clinical outcomes with both kits were compared.

RESULTS

The new introducer PEG kit was used in 61 patients while the remaining 75 patients received tube placement using a push technique PEG kit. Except for the prevalence of dementia, which was lower in the introducer PEG kit group, baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Tube placements were 100 % successful with both PEG kits and there were no significant differences in the change of postoperative hemodynamic or laboratory biomarkers. The Introducer PEG kit group experienced fewer incidence of feeding-related aspiration pneumonia (8.2 % vs. 24 %, P = 0.02), lower peristomal infection scores (1.2 vs. 1.6, P < 0.01), shorter postoperative length of stay (16 days vs. 23.7 days, P = 0.01) and fewer deaths at day 60 (3.3 % vs. 16 %, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrostomy using the new large-caliber introducer PEG kit is safe and produced non-inferior (with some favourable) results when compared to the push technique using similar size tubes.

Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of São Paulo.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions.

CONCLUSION

The push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.

Feasibility and Safety of Overtubes for PEG-Tube Placement in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Background. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement using the “pull” technique is commonly utilized for providing nutritional support in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, but it may be complicated by peristomal metastasis in up to 3% of patients. Overtube-assisted PEG placement might reduce this risk. However, this technique has not been systemically studied for this purpose to date. Methods. Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with HNC who underwent overtube-assisted PEG placement at Westmead Hospital, Australia, between June 2011 and December 2013. Data were extracted from patients' endoscopy reports and case notes. We present our technique for PEG insertion and discuss the feasibility and safety of this method. Results. In all 53 patients studied, the PEG tubes were successfully placed using 25 cm long flexible overtubes, in 89% prophylactically (before commencing curative chemoradiotherapy), and in 11% reactively (for treatment of tumor related dysphagia or weight loss). During a median follow-up period of 16 months, 3 (5.7%) patients developed peristomal infection and 3 others developed self-limiting peristomal pain. There were no cases of overtube-related adverse events or overt cutaneous metastases observed. Conclusions. Overtube-assisted PEG placement in patients with HNC is a feasible, simple, and safe technique and might be effective for preventing cutaneous metastasis.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Funada-style gastropexy greatly reduces the risk of peristomal infection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Peristomal wound infections are common complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The Funada-style gastropexy device has two parallel needles with a wire loop and suture thread, and was developed about 20 years ago in Japan. This kit has allowed us to perform dual gastropexy very easily; PEG with gastropexy has become a very popular technique in Japan. The present study aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of PEG with the gastropexy technique with the standard 'pull' method.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 182 consecutive, non-randomized patients undergoing PEG in our hospital, and a comparative analysis was made between the gastropexy (87 patients) and non-gastropexy (95 patients) groups.

RESULTS

The rates of patients having erythema (11.6% vs. 47.9%; P < 0.001), exudates (2.3% vs. 14.9%; P < 0.01) and infection (0% vs. 6.4%; P = 0.01) in the peristomal area were lower in the gastropexy than in the non-gastropexy group. The rate of minor bleeding from the peristomal area was higher in the gastropexy than in the non-gastropexy group (12.8% vs. 2.1%; P < 0.01), but no patient required a blood transfusion. Mean procedure time was longer in the gastropexy group than in the non-gastropexy group (31 vs. 24 min; P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rates were 4.7% and 5.3% respectively, and these deaths were not related to the gastrostomy procedure.

CONCLUSION

PEG with gastropexy markedly reduces peristomal inflammation. Although minor bleeding and a longer procedure time were disadvantages, there were no severe complications. The findings suggested that PEG with Funada-style gastropexy was a safe and feasible method for reducing early complications of PEG.

Peritonitis related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using the direct method is generally indicated for cancer patients. However, there are little available data about peritonitis related to this method. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess peritonitis related to PEG using the direct method in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We assessed the prevalence of peritonitis and the relationship between peritonitis and patients' backgrounds, as well as the clinical course after peritonitis.

RESULTS

Between December 2008 and December 2011, peritonitis was found in 9 (2.1 %) of 421 patients. Of the 9 patients with peritonitis, 4 had received PEG prior to chemoradiotherapy. Emergency surgical drainage was required in 1 patient, and the remaining 8 recovered with conservative treatment. Peritonitis occurred within 8 days of PEG for 8 of the 9 patients and occurred within 2 days of suture removal for 4 of the 9 patients.

CONCLUSION

Peritonitis related to PEG using the direct method was less frequent for cancer patients. Peritonitis tended to occur within a few days after removal of securing suture and in patients with palliative stage.

Laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a simple and efficient technique for disabled elderly patients

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a simplified catheter placement procedure for alimentation. Although the endoscopic approach to gastrostomy tube placement is a safe and well-tolerated procedure in most patients, the PEG procedure is difficult in elderly patients disabled since childhood who have severe scoliosis and malpositioning of the stomach. We describe a simple and effective laparoscopic-assisted PEG (LAPEG) technique that can be used for catheter placement in severely disabled patients.

METHODS

Thirteen severely disabled patients aged 14-57 years underwent gastrostomy tube placement with the LAPEG technique. After general anesthesia was achieved, an endoscope was placed into the stomach. Then, a 5-mm camera port was inserted at the umbilicus, and a 3-mm working port was inserted to identify and lift the optimal site for gastrostomy tube placement. After the 4-point fixation of the stomach, the 20-Fr gastrostomy tube was placed under endoscopic and laparoscopic observation.

RESULTS

All patients tolerated the procedure well, and there were no major complications. The procedure was successful, and all patients could feed via the tube.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly disabled patients who have been bedridden since childhood often have severe scoliosis and malpositioning of the stomach. Our LAPEG procedure is effective, well tolerated, and safe for gastrostomy tube placement in such elderly patients.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: predictors of 30-day complications, 30-day mortality, and overall mortality

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients benefit from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in many ways including nutritional support and venting in cases of malignant obstruction. Lack of high-quality studies with adequate follow-up has led to limited information regarding risk stratification and predictors of morbidity and mortality.

AIMS

Elucidate predictors of complications and mortality with long-term follow-up in cancer patients undergoing PEG.

METHOD

Retrospective review of all patients undergoing PEG placement at MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 218 subjects underwent PEG. Those with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores of 4, 4E, or 5E were at significant risk of a major complication in the first 30 days. Multivariate analysis revealed ASA scores ≥4, elevated WBC count, and advanced tumor stage to be independent predictors of mortality in the first 30 days and INR >1.5 and diversion/venting as an indication for PEG placement to be independent predictors of overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high baseline illness severity are more likely to have complications and are at increased risk of mortality after PEG. Our study results suggest that particular attention be directed to ASA score, INR, WBC counts, transfusion requirements, presence of advanced malignancies, and the indication for PEG placement when determining risk of complications or death. Patients undergoing venting PEG are expected to have short post-PEG survival but improvement in quality of life likely justifies the risks associated with PEG placement.

Feeding tube placement: errors and complications

Feeding tube placement for enteral nutrition (EN) support is widely used in both critically ill and stable chronically ill patients who are unable to meet their nutrition needs orally. Nasal or oral feeding tubes can be performed blindly at the bedside or with fluoroscopic or endoscopic guidance into the stomach or small bowel. Percutaneous feeding tubes are used when EN support is required for longer periods (>4-6 weeks) and are most commonly placed endoscopically or radiographically. Although generally safe and effective, there is a wide spectrum of known complications associated with feeding tube placement. Errors made at the time of feeding tube placement can result in a number of these procedural and postprocedural complications. In many cases, a single error at the time of placement can result in numerous complications. A thorough knowledge of these errors and avoiding them in practice will decrease iatrogenic complications in a vulnerable population. In addition, early recognition and management of complications will further minimize morbidity and even mortality in enteral feeding tube placement. This article reviews the common errors leading to complications of enteral feeding tube placement and their prevention and management.

Effect of the introducer technique compared with the pull technique on the peristomal infection rate in PEG: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peristomal infection is a main complication of PEG. The pull technique appears to be associated with higher infection rates compared with the introducer technique, although published results are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which technique is associated with a higher risk of infection.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Studies reporting rates of peristomal infection after PEG performed by either the pull or introducer technique.

PATIENTS

This study involved 2336 patients from 6 comparative and 10 observational studies.

INTERVENTION

Public MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine journal articles database), Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information databases and proceedings of two meetings, Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week, were searched. Both comparative and observational studies were included and analyzed separately.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Effect measures from each comparative study were reported as the odds ratio (OR). The pooled effect was then calculated. The infection rate in each observational study was also calculated, and a summary effect was then determined.

RESULTS

In comparative studies, the risk of infection was significantly higher with the pull technique (OR 13.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-36.8; P < .0001). Similarly, observational studies also reported higher infection rates with the pull technique (10.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-21.8 with the pull technique vs 0.9%; 95% CI, 0.2-4.5 with the introducer technique).

LIMITATIONS

Few studies were available for inclusion, and there was a high risk of bias among the comparative studies.

CONCLUSION

The pull technique appears to be associated with a significantly higher risk of infection compared with the introducer technique.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for aerodigestive cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In esophageal or head and neck cancer patients, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) by the pull method has higher complication rates than in noncancer patients. An introducer method is considered suitable for these patients, however, complications associated with deflation or rupture of the balloon-anchoring system are reported.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of a modified introducer method, called direct method, for aerodigestive cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between October 2007 and December 2010, direct-method PEG was performed in 160 patients with advanced-stage esophageal (59 patients) or head and neck (101 patients) cancer. Complications and postoperative course were retrospectively retrieved from charts.

RESULTS

An ultrathin endoscopy was used in 109 patients (72.7%), and 23 patients received previous endoscopic dilatation (14%) due to the stricture caused by the tumor. The success rate of tube placement was 98.8% (158/160). Major complications related to tube insertion, such as panperitonitis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and postoperative pneumonia occurred in five patients (3.2%). One patient died for panperitonitis due to late-onset tube dislodgement. There were no cases of tube blockade and no metastases in the PEG site during the median follow-up period of 153 days.

CONCLUSION

This was the first report of direct-method PEG in a number of esophageal or head and neck cancer patients. This method is optimal for its high success rate, acceptable safety profile, and little risk of stomal metastasis.

Does PEG use cause dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients?

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) use is common in patients who undergo radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer to maintain weight and nutrition during treatment. However, the true effect of PEG use on weight maintenance and its potential impact on long-term dysphagia outcomes have not been adequately studied. This retrospective study looked at swallowing-related outcomes among patients who received prophylactic PEG vs. those who did not, and among patients who maintained oral diets vs. partial oral diets vs. those who were nil per os (NPO). Outcomes were assessed at the end of RT and at 3, 6, and 12 months post RT. A comprehensive review of patients' medical charts for a 6-year period yielded 59 subjects with complete data. Results showed no difference in long-term percent weight change between the prophylactic PEG patients vs. all others, or between patients who, during RT, had oral diets vs. partial oral diets vs. NPO. However, those who did not receive prophylactic PEGs and those who maintained an oral or a partial oral diet during RT had significantly better diet outcomes at all times post RT. Dependence on a PEG may lead to adverse swallowing ability in post-irradiated head and neck cancer patients possibly due to decreased use of the swallowing musculature.

Balloon gastrostomy tubes for long-term feeding in the community

AIM

Dysphagic patients with functional guts often receive nutritional and hydration support through enteral feeding tubes. These include percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) tubes. The balloon gastrostomy tube (BGT) as a primary tube of choice in tube-fed patients, including head and neck cancer patients, offers a new approach to enteral tube feeding in the community. There are complications associated with the use of enteral feeding tubes. This study compared the complication rates and the costs of PEG tubes and BGTs in patients on long-term enteral feeding in the community and looked at the possible use of BGTs as an alternative to PEG tubes.

METHODS

The records of all 15 BGT-fed patients on the caseload and 15 randomly selected PEG tube-fed patients were reviewed. The study was based on two consecutive visits to these patients. Tube and stoma complications were clinically scored in order of increasing severity (0-10) and statistically tested. The prevalence of stoma and tube complications was expressed in percentages.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the overall clinical scores between BGT-fed and PEG tube-fed patients at both initial and final visits. However, with regard to specific complications-infected sites, tube dislodgement, overgranulation, and infection with overgranulation-significant differences were observed between the two groups of patients at the initial and final visits. In addition, the total costs of inserting and managing BGTs were significantly higher than those for PEG tubes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although BGTs may be used as analternative to PEG tubes in patients on long-term enteral feeding in the community, the higher cost of using BGTs over PEG tubes should be considered when selecting feeding tubes for these patients.

Open gastrostomy by mini-laparotomy: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Gastrostomy tube feeding is the best option for long lasting nutritional support in patients with dysphagia caused by obstructive tumours of the mouth, pharynx, larynx and ooesophagus or neuromuscular diseases. However, these severely compromised patients often present severe respiratory risks, precluding the use of general anesthesia, sedation or even endoscopy. A simplified open gastrostomy (SOG) under local anesthesia has been in practice in our institution, especially for patients with severe neuromuscular diseases and continuous non-invasive ventilatory support. In this study, we try to compare the surgical outcomes of this technique, with the classical Stamm gastrostomy (SG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This simplified technique uses a minimal vertical midline incision (3 cm), just below the xyphoid process, under local anesthesia. The gastrostomy tube is passed by a left lateral stab wound, inserted in a double purse-string in the gastric wall and pulled to the anterior abdominal wall. No sutures between the stomach and the peritoneum are placed. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 63 consecutive gastrostomies performed upon a 3-year period, 23 of which were by SOG.

RESULTS

The SG was performed mainly in oncological patients, and SOG in patients with neuromuscular diseases (p < 0.001). In the SOG group, 95,4% (n = 22) of the patients were ASA IV, compared with 74,4% (n = 29) in SG (p = 0,03). The mean operative time was shorter in the simplified technique (37 vs 60 min; p = 0,01). All the surgeries in the SOG group were performed exclusively with local anesthesia and in the Stamm procedure, 47,5% required invasive ventilatory support (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences regarding in-hospital morbi-mortality (p = 0,18). The patients were able to receive adequate nutritional support, and the overall satisfaction of the patients and family/caregivers is very good.

CONCLUSION

The simplified mini-laparotomy gastrostomy is a safe and effective alternative to other approaches. The association of local anesthesia with a minimal surgical offense and a short operative time render its effectiveness, even in high-risk patients.

Complications following gastrostomy tube insertion in patients with head and neck cancer: a prospective multi-institution study, systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To measure morbidity and mortality rates following insertion of gastrostomy tubes in head and neck cancer patients. To determine evidence for any relationship between gastrostomy insertion technique and complication rates.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study and qualitative systematic review.

SETTING

Multi-cancer networks in the South West of England, Hampshire and the Isle of White.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and seventy-two patients with head and neck cancer undergoing gastrostomy tube insertion between 2004 and 2005. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was performed in 121 patients. Fifty-one patients had radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG). Twenty-seven studies reporting outcomes following 2353 gastrostomy procedures for head and neck cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Post-procedure mortality, major and minor complications.

RESULTS

In the present series, mortality rates were 1.0% (1/121) for PEG and 3.9% (2/51) for RIG. Overall major complication rates following PEG and RIG were 3.3% (4/121) and 15.6% (9/51) respectively. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of 2379 head and neck cancer patients, we observed fatality rates of 2.2% (95% CI 0.014-0.034) following PEG and 1.8% (95% CI 0.010-0.032) following RIG. Furthermore, major complication rates following PEG were 7.4% (95% CI 5.9-9.3%) and 8.9% (95% CI 7.0-11.2%) after RIG.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedure related mortality rates following gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients are higher than those in mixed patient populations. Major complication rates following RIG in head and neck cancer patients are greater than those following PEG. Major complications following PEG in patients with head and neck cancer appear no worse than in mixed pathology groups. We have identified that RIG is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients who are ineligible for PEG. The serious nature of the complications associated with gastrostomy particularly in patients with head and neck cancer requires careful consideration by the referring physician.

Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 435 cases

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) performed through the Introducer Technique is associated with lower risk of surgical infection when compared to the Pull Technique. Its use is less widespread as the fixation of the stomach to the abdominal wall is a stage of the procedure that is difficult to be performed. We present a new technical variant of gastropexy which is fast and easy to be performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of gastropexy in patients submitted to gastrostomy performed through the Introducer Technique.

METHODS

All the patients submitted to PEG through the Introducer Technique were evaluated using a new technical variant of gastropexy, which consists of two parallel stitches of trasfixation sutures involving the abdominal wall and the gastric wall, performed with a long curved needle. Prophylactic antibiotics were not used. Demographic aspects, initial diagnosis, indication, sedation doses, morbidity and surgical mortality were all analyzed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-five consecutive PEGs performed between June 2004 and May 2007 were studied. Nearly all the cases consisted of patients presenting malignant neoplasia, 79.5% of which sited in the head and neck. The main indication of PEG was dysphagia, found in 346 patients (79.5%). There were 12 complications (2.8%) in 11 patients, from which only one patient had peristomal infection (0.2%). There was one death related to the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Gastropexy with the technical variant described here is easy to be performed and was feasible and safe in the present study. PEG performed by the Introducer Technique with this type of gastropexy was associated with low rates of wound infection even without the use of prophylactic antibiotics.

An audit of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: reducing the incidence of peri-operative airway events by the introduction of a tumour assessment protocol

INTRODUCTION

The presence of a malignancy of the upper aerodigestive tract introduces the potential for iatrogenic complications additional to those usually associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Specifically, seeding of tumour from the upper aerodigestive tract creating abdominal wall metastases, and airway obstruction due to tumour directly occluding the airway when a patient is sedated for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We report an audit of our experience of gastrostomy placement for patients under going treatment for head and neck cancer in our institution from September 2003 to October 2006.

RESULTS

Of 33 patients who had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion under sedation in the first cycle of the audit, two (6%) experienced major airway complications resulting in one fatality. A tumour assessment protocol was introduced. In the second cycle, 96 patients had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies, of whom 16 (13%) underwent gastrostomy insertion under general anaesthetic and five (4.5%) under radiological guidance. No patients had airway complications or abdominal wall metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

A formal tumour assessment protocol eliminated airway obstruction as a complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion and may reduce the potential for abdominal wall metastases at the gastrostomy site when using the pull technique.

Reduced risk of peristomal infection of direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure

BACKGROUND

Although pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (Pull-PEG) is a commonly used procedure, peristomal infection and tumor implantation are considered unavoidable complications of this procedure as the instrument passes through the oral cavity. A novel extracorporeal PEG technique, Direct-PEG, has been developed to reduce the risk of peristomal infection and implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

The Direct-PEG procedure was performed on 87 patients from April 2006 to April 2007 in a single, high-volume cancer center in Japan. To compare the surgical outcomes of Direct-PEG and Pull-PEG, the clinical outcomes of Direct-PEG, such as peristomal infection, were retrospectively collected and compared with those of 64 patients having Pull-PEG procedures from April 2005 to March 2006.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for the Direct-PEG group (13+/-1 minutes) was comparable to that for the Pull-PEG group (12+/-1 minutes), and the mean visual analogue pain score during surgery was lower for the Direct-PEG group (3.5+/-1.7) than for the Pull-PEG group (24.6+/-3.6; p < 0.001). The incidence of peristomal infection was lower in the Direct-PEG group (1%) than in the Pull-PEG group (9%; p=0.001). Although the most common major underlying disease in the groups was oropharyngeal or esophageal tumor, tumor implantation was not observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-PEG may be superior to the Pull-PEG method for a high-volume cancer center because of reduced risks of infection.