Short-Term Natural History of the Standard Approaches for Gastrostomy Tube Placement in the Pediatric Patient

Laparoscopic Gastrostomy in Infants During an Open Abdominal Procedure: A Novel Approach

Introduction: Infants with intra-abdominal pathology necessitating open abdominal surgery may also require placement of a gastrostomy tube (GT). Use of laparoscopy provides better visualization for gastrostomy placement and lowers the risk of complications compared with an open approach. We describe a series of patients who underwent laparoscopic GT placement at the time of an open abdominal procedure. Methods: All patients who underwent an open abdominal procedure with concurrent laparoscopic gastrostomy from January 2010 to June 2020 were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were performed with categorical variables reported as proportions and continuous variables reported as medians with interquartile range [IQR]. Results: Twelve patients were included; 8 (67.5%) were male. The median age at time of surgery was 10 weeks [IQR 6, 14], with a median weight of 4.1 kg [IQR 3.4, 4.8]. Ten patients had the laparoscope placed through the open incision, whereas 2 had the laparoscope placed through a separate incision. Median operative time was 106 minutes [IQR 80, 125]. There were no intraoperative complications. Postoperative complications included surgical site infection in 5 (41.7%), leaking around the GT in 3 (25%), and malfunction of the tube in 1 (8.3%). One patient required reoperation 28 days postoperatively due to malfunction. Conclusion: Laparoscopic GT can be safely performed at the time of an open abdominal procedure, and frequently through the same incision, harnessing the benefits of a laparoscopic approach even when an open incision is needed.

Gastrostomy Tube Use in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Despite frequency of gastrostomy placement procedures in children, there remains considerable variability in preoperative work-up and procedural technique of gastrostomy placement and a paucity of literature regarding patient-centric outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This review summarizes existing literature and provides consensus-driven guidelines for patients throughout the enteral access decision-making process.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and Scopus.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were identified through a combination of the search terms "gastrostomy," "g-tube," and "tube feeding" in children.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant data, level of evidence, and risk of bias were extracted from included articles to guide formulation of consensus summaries of the evidence. Meta-analysis was conducted when data afforded a quantitative analysis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Four themes were explored: preoperative nasogastric feeding tube trials, decision-making surrounding enteral access, the role of preoperative imaging, and gastrostomy insertion techniques. Guidelines were generated after evidence review with multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement adhering to GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Nearly 900 publications were reviewed, with 58 influencing final recommendations. In total, 17 recommendations are provided, including: (1) tTrial of home nasogastric feeding is safe and should be strongly considered before gastrostomy placement, especially for patients who are likely to learn to eat by mouth; (2) rRoutine contrast studies are not indicated before gastrostomy placement; and (3) lLaparoscopic placement is associated with the best safety profile.

LIMITATIONS

Recommendations were generated almost exclusively from observational studies and expert opinion, with few studies describing direct comparisons between GT placement and prolonged nasogastric feeding tube trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional patient- and family-centric evidence is needed to understand critical aspects of decision-making surrounding surgically placed enteral access devices for children.

Pediatric Gastrostomy Tube Placement: Less Complications Associated with Laparoscopic Approach

Background: There are few nationwide studies comparing outcomes of open, laparoscopic (LAP), and percutaneous endoscopic (PEG) gastrostomy tube (GT) placement in the pediatric population. Materials and Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2014 was used to identify patients ≤18 years (excluding newborns) who underwent GT placement. Demographics, hospital characteristics, and outcomes were compared by the GT approach. Results: There were 3278 patients (41% female, age 3 ± 5 years) identified who underwent GT placement (40% open versus 32% PEG versus 28% LAP). Following an open approach, there were higher rates of GT-related complications (10% versus 4% LAP versus 3% PEG) and postoperative gastrointestinal issues (24% versus 12% LAP versus 9% PEG) on index hospitalization, both P < .001. Readmission within 30 days and 1 year were 18% and 43%, respectively. Overall readmission rates were not affected by the GT approach (44% open versus 44% LAP versus 43% PEG, P = .773). However, readmission for GT-related complications was the lowest following the LAP approach (<0.3% versus 2% open versus 2% PEG, P < .001). When those who also underwent fundoplication were excluded, conversion to gastrojejunostomy or jejunostomy (GJ/J) on readmission was higher following open and PEG approaches (4% open versus 2% PEG versus 0% LAP, P = .039). Conclusions: Compared with PEG gastrostomy and open gastrostomy, LAP GT placement appears to have lower index complications and reoperation rates, and at least comparable readmission outcomes. Despite these advantages, LAP GT placement remains underutilized.

Button Gastrostomy Tubes for Pediatric Patients: A Tertiary Care Center Experience

Results

Out of 34 patients who underwent gastrostomy tube insertion, 30 patients had their long tube replaced by a button gastrostomy. Majority were males (N = 18, 60%). Prolonged nasogastric tube feeding was the main indication of referral (N = 17, 56%) followed by feed intolerance (N = 6, 17%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (N = 5, 16%). The main underlying diseases at referral were neurological impairment (N = 19, 63%) and metabolic disorders (N = 4, 13%). There was no significant difference between patients with neurological disorders and other diseases in terms of gender, nationality, or age. Laparotomy with gastrostomy is the main approach used (N = 18, 60%). No reported complications of button tubes in 50% of the patients (N = 15).

Conclusions

Prolonged nasogastric tube feeding is the main indication of referral for gastrostomy tube insertion. Neurological disorders are the main diagnosis for the cases operated upon. Laparotomy with gastrostomy is the procedure of choice at our center. Majority of patients had no reported complications of button tube replacement. These children are likely to benefit from the button tube with fewer complications.

Comparison of the Laparoscopic and Open Methods of Gastrostomy at Neonates and Infants Up To Three Months of Age

Background: An open surgical intervention is a common approach for gastrostomy tube placement in neonates and infants. Also available, however less often used, is a laparoscopic technique for low-profile gastrostomy tube (button) placement. In this study we compare the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural outcomes of each technique. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all open and laparoscopically inserted gastrostomies at our department from January 2002 to December 2016 and compared them in terms of operative parameters and outcomes. Results: In the study interval, 44 open and 90 laparoscopically placed low-profile (button) gastrostomies were performed. There were no significant differences in gender distribution, mean age (42.54 versus 34.16 days), and mean weight (3311 versus 3476 g). The frequency of concomitant Nissen fundoplication was higher in the laparoscopy group (18% versus 47%; P < .05). The duration of G-tube placement by laparotomy was significantly longer (mean difference 16 minutes), than by laparoscopy, as were time periods between G-tube insertion and the onset of first feeding (mean differences 8.4 and 19.6 hours, respectively). Children in the laparoscopy group spent nearly 15 fewer days in the hospital than those who received a G-tube by laparotomy (29.0 versus 13.9; P < .05). Major complications were observed in 3 (6.82%) patients in the laparotomy group in the form of gastric content leak into the abdominal cavity and resulting peritonitis; complications were lower in the laparoscopy group (68.18% versus 13.33%; P = .03). Conclusions: Compared with open gastrostomy, the laparoscopic approach appears to be advantageous with respect to procedural duration, initiation of feedings, hospitalization duration, and rate of complications. Another difference was the frequency of concomitant Nissen fundoplication. Further prospective studies may determine the role of these patient-specific factors regarding who benefits most from the laparoscopic technique.

Fundoplication with gastrostomy vs gastrostomy alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications

PURPOSE

We compare the outcomes of fundoplication with gastrostomy vs gastrostomy alone and review the need for subsequent fundoplication after the initial gastrostomy alone.

METHODS

We searched studies published from 1969 to 2016 for comparative outcomes of concomitant fundoplication with gastrostomy (FGT) vs gastrostomy insertion alone (GT) in children. Gastrostomy methods included open, laparoscopic, and endoscopic procedures. Primary aims were minor and major complications. Secondary aims included post-operative reflux-related complications, fundoplication specific complications, and need for subsequent fundoplication after GT.

RESULTS

We reviewed 447 studies; 6 observational studies were included for meta-analysis, encompassing 2730 children undergoing GT (n = 1745) or FGT (n = 985). FGT was associated with more minor complications [19.9 vs 11.4%, OR 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43-2.87, p ≤ 0.0001, I ² = 0%], minor complications requiring revision (6.8 vs 3.0%, OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.28-4.05, p = 0.005, I ² = 0%), and more overall complications (21.3 vs 12.0%, OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.43-2.78, p < 0.0001, I ² = 0%). Incidence of major complications (1.8 vs 2.0%, OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.62-3.11, p = 0.42, I ² = 5%) and reflux-related complications (8.8 vs 10.3%, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35-1.68, p = 0.46, I ² = 0%) in both groups was similar. Incidence of subsequent fundoplication in GT patients was 8.6% (mean).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrostomy alone is associated with fewer minor and overall complications. Concomitant fundoplication does not significantly reduce reflux-related complications. As few patients require fundoplication after gastrostomy, current evidence does not support concomitant fundoplication.

Does Gastrostomy Placement With Concurrent Fundoplication Increase the Risk of Gastrostomy-related Complications?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of complications with a primary gastrostomy versus gastrostomy with concurrent fundoplication and evaluating the impact of the method of gastrostomy tube placement. Neurologically impaired children were compared with neurologically normal children. Two low profile devices were compared for longevity.

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients (58 boys, mean age 4.66 years) with 107 gastrostomies inserted between April 2004 and May 2008 were included in this retrospective, single institution audit. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year. Specific complications reviewed were tube and site related. Logistic regression analysis examined the relationship between complications, type of procedure, method of placement, and neurological status. Survival analysis with log-rank test was used to compare the duration of the low-profile devices.

RESULTS

There were 63 primary gastrostomies and 44 with concurrent fundoplication, 71 children were neurologically impaired. Mean (±SD) follow-up time was 35.6 ± 1.4 months. There was a significant association between concurrent gastrostomy insertion with fundoplication and incidence of infection (odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-5.56, P = 0.02) and excoriation (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% CI 1.09-5.71, P = 0.015). There were no associations between the complications with gastrostomy placement and neurological status. Failure rate of the balloon device was significantly greater than the fixed bolster device with a Hazard Ratio for survival of 3.2 (95% CI 2.2-4.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrostomy site-related problems were more common than generally reported. There was a higher incidence of site infection and skin excoriation for gastrostomy placement with concurrent fundoplication. There was no significant difference in complications between the method of gastrostomy placement or neurological status. Balloon devices were changed 3 times more often than bolster retention devices.

Laparoscopic versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in children: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrostomy (LAG) are widely used in the paediatric population. The aim of this study was to determine which one of the two procedures is the most effective and safe method.

METHODS:

This systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. Primary outcomes were success rate, efficacy of feeding, quality of life, gastroesophageal reflux and post-operative complications.

RESULTS:

Five retrospective studies, comparing 550 PEG to 483 LAG placements in children, were identified after screening 2347 articles. The completion rate was similar for both procedures. PEG was associated with significantly more adjacent bowel injuries (P = 0.047), early tube dislodgements (P = 0.02) and complications that require reintervention under general anaesthesia (P < 0.001). Minor complications were equally frequent after both procedures.

CONCLUSIONS:

Because of the lack of well-designed studies, we have to be cautious in making definitive conclusions comparing PEG to LAG. To decide which type of gastrostomy placement is best practice in paediatric patients, randomised controlled trials comparing PEG to LAG are highly warranted.

Outcome of laparoscopic versus open gastrostomy in children

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic gastrostomy (LAPG) has gained popularity in children. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of LAPG versus open gastrostomy (OG) in children with focus on complications, operative times and postoperative length of stay.

METHODS

Retrospective study of children who had gastrostomies inserted at our tertiary Pediatric Surgery Center from 2000 until 2013. The indications for a gastrostomy were an anticipated need for enteral support for at least 6 months. Totally 243 children were included in the study, 83 with LAPG and 160 with OG.

RESULTS

We found a significant difference in postoperative length of stay, 3 days in the LAPG group versus 4 days in the OG group but no difference in a sub-group analysis from 2010 to 2013 when both techniques were used. There was no difference in median operative time or complications rates. Granuloma was the dominating complication in both groups.

CONCLUSION

These two feeding-access techniques are comparable regarding complications, operative times and postoperative length of stay. The choice of surgical method should be individualized based on the patient's characteristics and the experience of the surgeon. The favorable results with LAPG in adults are not necessarily transferable to children since there are physiological and anatomical differences.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrostomy insertion techniques in children

BACKGROUND

Gastrostomy tubes are inserted via multiple techniques to provide a route for enteral feeding in the pediatric population. This review compares the rate of major complications and resource utilization associated with the various insertion techniques.

METHODS

Major electronic databases were queried for comparative studies of two or more insertion techniques, including open, laparoscopic, percutaneous endoscopic, or fluoroscopic guided. Major complications were defined as reoperation within 1 year or death. Screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were conducted independently by two reviewers. Forest and funnel plots were generated for outcomes using Revman 5.1, with p<0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with a total of 5438 patients met inclusion criteria. No differences in major complications were noted in studies comparing open versus laparoscopic approaches or open versus PEG. Studies comparing laparoscopic gastrostomy and PEG revealed a significantly increased risk in major complications with PEG (n=10 studies, OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.51, p<0.0001). The number needed to treat to reduce one major complication by abandoning PEG is 45.

CONCLUSIONS

PEG is associated with an increased risk of major complications when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Advantages in operative time appear outweighed by the increased safety profile of laparoscopic gastrostomy insertion.

[Button gastrostomy in children]

For the period January 2002 to December 2013 it was performed 84 interventions for introduction of gastrostomy tube. The first group included 24 open operations and the second group had 60 laparoscopic operations by using of button devices MIC-KEY (Kimberly-Clark, Roswell, USA) in neonates and infants. Statistically significant difference was not observed during comparison of demographic data of patients. Differences in groups were found in statistical analysis of intra- and postoperative parameters (p<0.05). Mean duration of surgery in the first group was 37.29 min, in the second group - 23.97 min. Time to start of feeding and transition to complete enteral nutrition was less in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery than after open intervention (10.5 and 19.13 hours, 23.79 and 35.88 hours respectively; p<0.05). It was revealed augmentation of hospital stay in the 1st group in comparison with the 2(nd) group (11.71 and 7.09 days respectively; p<0.05). Frequency of postoperative complications was 18.33% in the 2(nd) group and 24% - in the 1st group (p<0.05). The authors consider that button devices are simply and effective technique of gastrostomy establishment in children. It is associated with minimal surgery duration and allows to start early enteral nutrition in comparison with open techniques.

Enteral nutrition access devices

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.