The push-pull T technique: an easy and safe procedure in children with the buried bumper syndrome

Buried bumper syndrome: A critical analysis of endoscopic release techniques

Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is the situation in which the internal bumper of the gastrostomy tube, due to prolonged compression of the tissues between the external and the internal bumper, migrates from the gastric lumen into the gastric wall or further, into the tract outside the gastric lumen, ending up anywhere between the stomach mucosa and the surface of the skin. This restricts liquid food from entering the stomach, since the internal opening is obstructed by gastric mucosal overgrowth. We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed literature to retrieve all the case-reports and case-series referring to BBS and its management, after which we focused on the endoscopic techniques for releasing the internal bumper to re-establish the functionality of the tube. From the “push” and the “push and pull T” techniques to the most sophisticated-using high tech instruments, all 10 published techniques have been critically analysed and the pros and cons presented, in an effort to optimize the criteria of choice based on maximum efficacy and safety.

The Cambridge experience with buried bumpers

AIM

Buried Bumper (BB) is a complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) that leads to tube dysfunction and major morbidity. Although many techniques have been described to manage BB, none are universally adopted, and laparotomy remains the mainstay. We introduce a novel endoscopic technique in paediatric surgery that avoids laparotomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records of patients who presented with BB to Cambridge University Hospital, UK, between January 2012 and June 2018 was done. Data collected included: demographics, tube size and type, interval between insertion and diagnosis of BB, hospital stay, technique used, and postoperative complications. The technique involved using an endoscopic snare passed from inside the stomach lumen through the PEG lumen to the outside, guided if required by a stiff nylon thread if no part of the PEG was visible, grasping the PEG tube externally after cutting it short, followed by a retrograde pull to remove the buried tube via the mouth.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen BBs were found in ten patients. Median patient age was 5.25 years (1.2-16.6). Median time between gastrostomy insertion and diagnosis of BB was 9 months (1-32). Twelve BBs were removed endoscopically with no postoperative complications. Patients had a replacement inserted through the original track and were discharged within 24 h. Two underwent laparotomies performed by surgeons unfamiliar with endoscopic technique, and one was converted to laparotomy owing to inability to transverse an encrusted and closed PEG tube lumen.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic retrograde BB removal is a safe, easy, and quick technique with minimal complications. We strongly advocate widespread adoption of the technique before considering a laparotomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Treatment study: Level IV.

Evaluating complication rates and outcomes among infants less than 5kg undergoing traditional percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion: A retrospective chart review

PURPOSE

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) enables enteral nutrition for patients with inadequate oral intake. Laparoscopic guidance of PEG insertion is used for high-risk populations, including in infants less than 5kg at insertion. This study aimed to assess complication rates with traditional PEG tube insertion in infants less than 5kg at a single tertiary care center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients less than 5kg who underwent PEG insertion was conducted. PEG insertion-related complications, up to four years following insertion, were collected. Outcomes were reported as counts and percentages, or median with minimum and maximum values.

RESULTS

480 pediatric gastrostomy procedures between January 1, 2009 and February 1, 2017, were screened, with 129 included for analysis. Median weight at PEG insertion was 3800g. Superficial surgical site infection (SSI) occurred in 6 (4.7%) patients, and 1 (0.8%) required readmission for intravenous antibiotics. One (0.8%) required endoscopic management for retained foreign body, 1 (0.8%) required operative management for gastrocolic fistula, and 1 (0.8%) for persistent gastrocutaneous fistula. No deep space SSI, procedure-related hemorrhage requiring readmission or transfusion, buried bumper syndrome, or procedure-related mortality occurred.

CONCLUSION

Traditional PEG tube insertion in infants less than 5kg results in complication rates comparable to pediatric literature standards.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, retrospective prognosis study.

Short article: Buried bumper syndrome in children: incidence and risk factors

OBJECTIVE

Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is a serious complication in gastrostomy-dependent children. Many need surgical correction. On account of comorbidities, this becomes a high-risk procedure. Our aim was to review the incidence of BBS in children and to identify the risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients' records over 10 years, 2006-2015, was carried out. Types of tubes, operative interventions, comorbidities and records were noted. Two-tailed Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 535 patients were reviewed. Overall, 475 had only percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and 60 had a jejunal extension with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG-J). Twenty-nine patients (PEG-J - 16/26; PEG - 13/26) had a total of 31 BBS episodes. The overall incidence of BBS in our study was 5.4%. The age at presentation ranged from 1 to 18 years (median 8.6 years). All had significant comorbidities (neurodevelopmental 26/29, cardiorespiratory 14/29, genetic 16/29). Overall, 27/29 had two or more comorbidities. The mean time to development of BBS was 1025±634 days. BBS was found in the second or the subsequent tube in four patients with PEGs (P<0.0004) and in 10 PEG-Js (P<0.0001). Twenty-five patients needed laparotomy. There were no postoperative deaths.

CONCLUSION

In BBS, the two significant risk factors identified were a having PEG-J and two or more previous gastrostomy insertions. Vigilance in documentation and prolonged follow-up to provide regular education to carers can reduce the incidence of this preventable complication.

Are PEGJs a Risk Factor for the Buried Bumper Syndrome?

AIM

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs) with or without a jejunal extension (PEGJs) are a well-accepted method of enteral feeding. They are associated with a number of complications, including the buried bumper syndrome (BBS). We aimed to identify risk factors for BBS, our current management strategies, and optimal timing for surgical treatment.

METHODS

Hospital coding and a database compiled by our specialist nutrition nurse were used to identify all cases of buried bumpers from January 2012 to December 2014 as well as all PEG/PEGJ devices inserted during this time. A retrospective case note review was performed for each patient with BBS to identify risk factors, management strategies, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred twelve PEGs and 22 PEGJs were inserted. Nine patients were identified with BBS. Patients with PEGJ tubes were significantly more likely to develop BBS (7/22, 32%) than those with PEG tubes (2/212, 0.9%) P<0.01. There was one death in the study group because of abdominal sepsis associated with an intraperitoneal PEG bumper 33days after BBS was diagnosed and before removal was attempted. All other patients underwent laparotomy to remove the bumper. Mean hospital stay was 22days postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Buried bumper syndrome is a serious condition which warrants urgent intervention. We have demonstrated a higher than expected rate of BBS associated with PEGJ tubes. We hypothesize that this may be related to the jejunal extensions leading to difficulty in the usual maintenance regimen that all carers are taught after PEG/PEGJ insertion.

Buried bumper syndrome: A complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a widely used method of nutrition delivery for patients with long-term insufficiency of oral intake. The PEG complication rate varies from 0.4% to 22.5% of cases, with minor complications being three times more frequent. Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is a severe complication of this method, in which the internal fixation device migrates alongside the tract of the stoma outside the stomach. Excessive compression of tissue between the external and internal fixation device of the gastrostomy tube is considered the main etiological factor leading to BBS. Incidence of BBS is estimated at around 1% (0.3%-2.4%). Inability to insert, loss of patency and leakage around the PEG tube are considered to be a typical symptomatic triad. Gastroscopy is indicated in all cases in which BBS is suspected. The depth of disc migration in relation to the lamina muscularis propria of the stomach is critical for further therapy and can be estimated by endoscopic or transabdominal ultrasound. BBS can be complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation, peritonitis, intra-abdominal and abdominal wall abscesses, or phlegmon, and these complications can lead to fatal outcomes. The most important preventive measure is adequate positioning of the external bolster. A conservative approach should be applied only in patients with high operative risk and dismal prognosis. Choice of the method of release is based on the type of the PEG set and depth of disc migration. A disc retained inside the stomach and completely covered by the overgrowing tissue can be released using some type of endoscopic dissection technique (needle knife, argon plasma coagulation, or papillotome through the cannula). Proper patient selection and dissection of the overgrowing tissue are the major determinants for successful endoscopic therapy. A disc localized out of the stomach (lamina muscularis propria) should be treated by a surgeon.

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.