Longevity of balloon-stabilized skin-level gastrostomy device

Gastrostomy Button Diameter and Length Variations after Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: One Size Does Not Fit All

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a useful option for long-term enteral nutrition. Low-profile gastrostomy tubes ("buttons") may afterward be placed in the stomach through the abdominal wall following maturation of the preexisting ostomy. Regular verification is essential since inadequate sizing is associated with accidental exteriorization or food leakage. We aimed to evaluate gastrostomy buttons diameter or length variations on the first year after their placement and possible factors associated with these variations.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive PEGs between 2016 and 2018. A minimum follow-up of 12 after gastrostomy button placement was required. Diameter or length variations were assessed in a specialized PEG appointment during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Final sample included 94 patients, from which 65 (69.1%) were women, and 29 (30.9%) were men, with a mean age of 76.9 ± 13.3 years. Measurements variations occurred in 44 (46.8%) patients. Diameter variation was significantly more frequent in patients living in a nursing home (OR = 5.43; 95% CI = 1.32-22.27; p = 0.019), patients with previous PEG tube dislodgement (OR = 3.84; 95% CI = 1.21-12.20; p = 0.023), and male patients (OR = 3.50; 95% CI = 1.06-11.49, p = 0.039). Length variation occurred more frequently in patients with a weight change during the follow-up period greater than 5 kg (OR = 3.71; 95% CI = 1.14-12.05; p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of patients with gastrostomy buttons required a change in their measurements, especially if male, living in nursing homes, having significant weight changes, or accidental tube exteriorization. This emphasizes the importance of having a specialized PEG appointment to regularly assure the best fitted button for each patient and ultimately guarantee an adequate nutritional intake.

Repurposing medical devices as "button" esophagostomy tubes for extended nutritional support

Background

Esophagostomy tubes (E‐tubes) are widely utilized for extended nutritional support in dogs and cats. Problems associated with their use include the unwieldy excess (10‐20 cm) of external tubing, constant need for neck wraps and necessity for skin sutures, suture tract infection, and tube loss if sutures fail.

Objectives

To evaluate 2 different, low profile (LP) “button” products intended for use in people as enteral (jejunostomy [J] and gastrojejunostomy [G‐J]) feeding tubes for suitability as LP E‐tubes in dogs and cats.

Animals

A young giant breed dog that required extended (>6 months) nutritional and fluid support during recovery from severe neurological illness with protracted adipsia, anorexia, and dysphagia.

Methods

Prospective evaluation of 2 commercially available LP feeding devices after placement of a standard E‐tube. An LP J‐tube and an LP G‐J tube were assessed in consecutive 4‐week trials, for tube retention, patient comfort, stoma health, and functionality.

Results

Both products performed extremely and equally well as LP E‐tubes in this clinical patient, enhancing patient freedom and comfort by eliminating external tubing, skin sutures, and bandaging. The dual port G‐J tube allows medication delivery (eg, sucralfate) to the entire esophagus, but for safety alone (ie, to avoid aspiration), the single port J‐tube appears the best device for client‐owned patients.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

The LP enteral feeding tubes from the human medical field can be successfully used as LP E‐tubes in dogs and cats, offering superior patient comfort, with no obvious detriment to the patient and main drawback of higher cost.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Children: An Update to the ESPGHAN Position Paper

BACKGROUND

The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) position paper from 2015 on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) required updating in the light of recent clinical knowledge and data published in medical journals since 2014.

METHODS

A systematic review of medical literature from 2014 to 2020 was carried out. Consensus on the content of the manuscript, including recommendations, was achieved by the authors through electronic and virtual means. The expert opinion of the authors is also expressed in the manuscript when there was a lack of good scientific evidence regarding PEGs in children in the literature.

RESULTS

The authors recommend that the indication for a PEG be individualized, and that the decision for PEG insertion is arrived at by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) having considered all appropriate circumstances. Well timed enteral nutrition is optimal to treat faltering growth to avoid complications of malnutrition and body composition. Timing, device choice and method of insertion is dependent on the local expertise and after due consideration with the MDT and family. Major complications such as inadvertent bowel perforation should be avoided by attention to good technique and by ensuring the appropriate experience of the operating team. Feeding can be initiated as early as 3 hours after tube placement in a stable child with iso-osmolar feeds of standard polymeric formula. Low-profile devices can be inserted initially using the single-stage procedure or after 2-3 months by replacing a standard PEG tube, in those requiring longer-term feeding. Having had a period of non-use and reliance upon oral intake for growth and weight gain-typically 8-12 weeks-a PEG may then safely be removed after due consultation. In the event of non-closure of the fistula the most successful method for closing it, to date, has been a surgical procedure, but the Over-The-Scope-Clip (OTSC) has recently been used with considerable success in this scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory for the best possible treatment of children with PEGs. Morbidity and mortality are minimized through team decisions on indications for insertion, adequate planning and preparation before the procedure, subsequent monitoring of patients, timing of the change to low-profile devices, management of any complications, and optimal timing of removal of the PEG.

A Prospective, Randomized Cross-over Trial of 2 Low-profile Gastrostomy Buttons to Determine Family Preference

Low-profile gastrostomy balloon buttons are often used in the pediatric population. We conducted a prospective, randomized crossover trial to determine family preference comparing MIC-KEY (tube A) and MiniONE (tube B) buttons. Patients were randomized to tube A and tube B at placement. At 2 months, patients were given the opposite button. At 4 months, parents indicated their preferred button. A standardized assessment tool was used to assess gastrostomy site skin complications and device malfunction. One hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized, 79 each to receive tube A or tube B first. Sixty-eight with tube A and 60 with tube B completed their first follow-up. Sixty-five with tube A and 43 with tube B completed crossover, 69% of whom preferred tube B (P < 0.001). Including those who preferred their first button and declined to switch at 2 months, 91 of 127 (72%) kept tube B, demonstrating a strong preference for tube B.

To Pull or to Scope: A Prospective Safety and Cost-effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Replacement Methods

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are routinely used as an effective method for providing enteral nutrition. The need for their exchange is common.

GOALS

We aimed to examine the comparative safety and cost-effectiveness of PEG percutaneous counter-traction "pulling" approach or by endoscopically guided retrieval.

STUDY

A prospective 215 consecutive patients undergoing PEG tube insertion were included. Fifty patients in total were excluded. The patients were examined for demographics, indications for PEG replacement, as well as procedure-related complications and procedural costs.

RESULTS

Group A included 70 patients (42%) with PEG tubes replaced endoscopically, whereas group B included 95 patients (58%) with PEG tubes replaced percutaneously. Baselines characteristics were similar between the 2 groups (P=NS). Group A and group B had similar immediate complication rates including 4 patients in group B (4.2%), and 2 patients in group A (2.8%) (P=0.24). Complications included a conservatively managed esophageal perforation, and self-limited mild bleeding groups A and group B, respectively. The mean procedure cost was significantly higher in the endoscopic PEG replacement group compared with the percutaneous PEG replacement group ($650 vs. $350, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous PEG replacement appears as safe as endoscopic PEG replacement, however, percutaneous tube exchange is less costly.

Replacing gastrostomy tubes with collapsible bumpers in pediatric patients: Is it safe to "cut" the tube and allow the bumper to pass enterally?

PURPOSE

The "cut and push" technique for removal of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes with collapsible bumpers offers an alternative to the standard traction method of removal. This study compared the outcomes of these techniques.

METHODS

We completed a research ethics board-approved retrospective cohort study, identifying all patients less than 18years of age who underwent PEG tube removal at a children's hospital between December 2013 and December 2016. Outcomes included need for sedation and complications.

RESULTS

We identified 127 children who had PEG tubes removed. Significantly fewer children required sedation with the cut and push group (1.1% vs. 60.6%, p≤0.001). Ten complications occurred, including 9 in the cut and push group (9.6% vs. 3%, p=0.23). Mean age at time of complication was significantly younger in the cut and push group (2.2 vs. 6.3years p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest reported series comparing the cut and push vs. traction removal methods. The cut and push technique significantly reduced the need for procedural sedation but was associated with increased risk of complications. While these data suggest that the technique is safe in older children, caution should be taken in younger children who appear to be more likely to vomit the residual bumper.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level III-Treatment study, Retrospective comparative study.

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy [Formula: see text]

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a valuable clinical intervention for patients of all ages in a variety of care settings. Along with its many outcome benefits come the potential for adverse effects. These safety issues are the result of clinical complications and of process-related errors. The latter can occur at any step from patient assessment, prescribing, and order review, to product selection, labeling, and administration. To maximize the benefits of EN while minimizing adverse events requires that a systematic approach of care be in place. This includes open communication, standardization, and incorporation of best practices into the EN process. This document provides recommendations based on the available evidence and expert consensus for safe practices, across each step of the process, for all those involved in caring for patients receiving EN.

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.

ESPGHAN position paper on management of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVES

This European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) position statement provides a comprehensive guide for health care providers to manage percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in a safe, effective, and appropriate way.

METHODS

Relevant literature from searches of PubMed, CINAHL, and recent guidelines was reviewed. In the absence of evidence, recommendations reflect the expert opinion of the authors. Final consensus was obtained by multiple e-mail exchange and during 3 face-to-face meetings of the gastroenterology committee of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

RESULTS

Endoscopically placed gastrostomy devices are essential in the management of children with feeding and nutritional problems. The article focuses on practical issues such as indications and contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to place an endoscopic gastrostomy has to be made by an appropriate multidisciplinary team, which then provides active follow-up and care for the child and the device.

Prospective randomized comparative study of low-profile balloon gastrostomy tubes in children

BACKGROUND

Supplemental enteral nutrition through gastrostomy tubes is well established in children, but prospective studies comparing different tubes remain lacking in this population. The study aimed at comparing different aspects related to the use of low-profile balloon gastrostomy tubes in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors prospectively studied the use of 2 tube types--tube A (MIC-Key gastrostomy tube; Ballard Medical Products, Draper, UT) and tube B (MINI One gastrostomy tube; Applied Medical Technology, Brecksville, OH)--in a cohort of children in a crossover study design. Children were randomly assigned to 1 tube type for 4 months, followed by the other tube type for the next 4 months. Patients were evaluated at enrollment and at 4 and 8 months, with monitoring phone calls at 2 and 6 months. Variables measured included caregiver satisfaction, tube-related complications, and device durability.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were included in the study. Infection rate (range, 4.8%-5.0%) and overall leakage rate (range, 42.9%-50.0%) were similar in both groups. Trends were noted with other variables measured but without statistical significance. These included lower rates of formula leakage and granulation tissue growth and higher satisfaction scores with tube B and more favorable device durability with tube A.

CONCLUSION

Both low-profile balloon gastrostomy tubes performed well and had comparable caregiver satisfaction, complications, and overall device durability.

Pediatric rehabilitation: 1. Common medical conditions in children with disabilities

OBJECTIVE

This self-directed learning module focuses on the physiatric management of the common morbidities associated with pediatric traumatic brain injury and cerebral palsy. It is part of the study guide on pediatric rehabilitation in the Self-Directed Physiatric Education Program for practitioners and trainees in physical medicine and rehabilitation and pediatric medicine. The goal of this article is to enhance the learner's knowledge regarding current physiatric management of complications related with pediatric traumatic brain injury and cerebral palsy.