Usefulness of the introducer method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using ultrathin transnasal endoscopy

Transnasal Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (T-PEG): An Alternative Approach to Conventional PEG Placement

Transnasal percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (T-PEG) is a novel endoscopic intervention for enteral nutrition. Peroral endoscopic gastrostomy is widely performed feeding procedure. However, it cannot be done in 4 to 7% of cases with head & neck malignancies. T-PEG is a safe and viable alternative procedure in those patients. T-PEG can be performed in patients with head and neck malignancies, malignant oropharyngeal obstruction, and trismus where oral endoscopy is not feasible.

Portable disposable ultrathin endoscopy tested through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

A portable disposable ultrathin endoscope (DUE) with high visual quality and maneuverability would reduce the need for expensive facilities and emergency endoscopy could be available anywhere. It would increase patient satisfaction, prevent unnecessary sedation, and reduce infection. Our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of portable DUE in performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent PEG under DUE guidance and compared them with historical controls who underwent PEG under conventional ultrathin endoscopy (CUE) guidance. The primary outcomes were successful stomach visualization and PEG tube insertion.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (19 male) were enrolled and compared with 25 gender and indication-matched controls. The most common indications for PEG were aspiration due to stroke or brain injury, dementia, and head and neck cancer. Entrance into the stomach was achieved in 92.0% (23/25) and 96% (24/25) in the DUE and CUE groups, and PEG was performed in 91.3% (21/23) and 95.8% (23/24), respectively. The mean insertion time for the DUE and CUE groups were 22.7 ± 9.3 minutes and 17.1 ± 5.7 minutes (P = 0.044). The 3 cases of failure to reach the stomach in both groups were caused by esophageal blockage. The 3 cases of failed PEG tube insertion were caused by poor visualization of the insertion site. Bleeding and pneumoperitoneum occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the DUE group. One case of fever was noted in the CUE group. All adverse events were conservatively managed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that portable DUE in facilities without endoscopy equipment may be clinically feasible.

Systemic Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Modified Introducer Method for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common method of enteral nutrition in patients who require long-term tube feeding. According to meta-analyses, administration of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for PEG reduces peristomal infection. However, with several recent developments in the procedure and instruments, the risk of infection might have been reduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for a modified introducer method of PEG.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial assessed 278 patients undergoing PEG for inclusion. Ninety-one patients with an indication for PEG who gave informed consent to participate were randomized. Forty-six patients received prophylactic ampicillin and 45 patients received a placebo. A modified introducer method of PEG using a Seldinger PEG kit was performed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically evident wound infection within 3 days after PEG.

RESULTS

Wound infection within 3 days was observed in none in the prophylaxis group and in 1 patient in the control group (P=0.4945). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in the other parameters, including peristomal infection within 7 days, overall infection, white blood cell counts, C-reactive protein level, and successive rate of finishing antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

For wound infection within 3 days, noninferiority of the placebo group to the antibiotics group was preliminarily suggested with our criteria, but not for peristomal infection within 7 days. More strict criteria for noninferiority should be examined in a further large sample study.

Gastrostomy in head and neck cancer: current literature, controversies and research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article explores the literature on the role of gastrostomy tube feeding use in the management of head and neck cancer, with special attention to its indications, timing of insertion, advantages, complications and quality of life issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current guidelines in place across different countries and two ongoing randomized controlled trials are discussed in detail, and placed in the context of current evidence.

SUMMARY

There remains a lack of consensus about when and which enteral feeding routes (gastrostomy or nasogastric tube) should be used and controversy about the long-term effects on swallowing function as well as quality of life for patients. Local guidelines should be used or generated to guide practice or patients enrolled into existing trials until higher level evidence is generated.