Management of early PEG tube dislodgement: simultaneous endoscopic closure of gastric wall defect and PEG replacement

Evaluation of community nurse-led traumatic tube displacements

Home enteral tube feeding (HEF) has many benefits and is largely safe practice. Some complications have historically required intervention in the acute setting, including traumatic displacement of feeding tubes (i.e. internal bumper/balloon removed intact), and evidence to support the safe replacement of these tubes in the community is lacking. To address this, a service enabling community homecare nurses (CHN) to replace traumatically displaced feeding tubes was designed and evaluated. Adult patients presenting with a traumatically displaced feeding tube over 29 months were included in the service evaluation. Baseline characteristics and outcomes at day 1, 7 and 6 months post-replacement were recorded. A total of 71 tube replacements were performed by CHNs in 60 patients. No clinical complications were recorded at any follow-up points. A simple cost analysis estimated savings of £235 754.40. These results suggest that nurse-led replacement of traumatically displaced feeding tubes in adults in the community is low-risk and offers potential cost savings.

A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic closure and laparoscopic repair for gastric wall defection.

Method

The clinical data of 120 patients with submucosal tumours enrolled at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery they underwent: an endoscopic closure group (n = 60) and a laparoscopic repair group (n = 60). The clinical characteristics, perioperative complications, and postoperative follow-up results of the two groups were analysed.

Results

The surgery time in the endoscopic closure group was 56.20 ± 11.25 minutes, which was significantly lower compared with that in the laparoscopic repair group (159.35 ± 23.18 minutes; P < 0.001). In addition, the postoperative stay in the endoscopic closure group was shorter than that in the laparoscopic repair group, and the intraoperative bleeding volume and incidence of enteral nutrition initiation after surgery were significantly lower. Medical expenses were also significantly lower in the endoscopic closure group than in the laparoscopic repair group (P < 0.001). Only one patient developed a postoperative fever in the endoscopic closure group; three patients developed a postoperative fever and one patient had postoperative bleeding in the laparoscopic repair group. However, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding the incidence of R0 resection, postoperative fever, postoperative bleeding, and closure failure (all P > 0.05). There were no local recurrences, distant metastases, or deaths in either of the groups during the two-year follow-up period.

Conclusion

Non-laparoscopic-assisted surgery may be quicker, safer, and more effective for gastric wall defection.