Dataset Information

'Cut and push' as an alternative to endoscopic retrieval of PEG type gastrostomy tubes.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Percutaneous Endoscopically placed Gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are frequently used in children. The traditional endoscopic method to remove/change the PEG device requires general anaesthesia in children. A minimally invasive alternative is the 'Cut and Push' method (C&P): avoiding the risks/wait times of general anaesthesia and reducing resource burden. Data regarding the safety/effectiveness of C&P in children are lacking with concerns raised about the possibility of gastrointestinal obstruction.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all cases of PEG removal / change to button in children (< 18 years) between December 2020 and January 2022. Cases were identified from a prospectively maintained database and all cases of C&P included. Parents/carers were asked if the child had suffered any complications following C&P and if flange was visualised in stools.

Results

During the time period, 27 PEGs were either removed or changed to button via C&P. The average waiting time for C&P was 14.29 days, significantly shorter than the minimum 6-month waiting time for elective endoscopy. Our evaluation revealed no complications of C&P at median 70 days (range 25-301). In three cases the flange was visualised in the stool, at 2 days, 3 days and 5 weeks following C&P respectively.

Discussion

These data support the available literature suggesting C&P is an effective means to facilitate minimally invasive and prompt PEG removal/change to button in children. We recommend minimum weight and age parameters for this procedure and further evaluation of the safety and resource implications of this technique.

SUBMITTER: Claxton H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9885393 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

'Cut and push' as an alternative to endoscopic retrieval of PEG type gastrostomy tubes.

Claxton Harry H Dick Karen K Taylor Rhoda R Allam Maddie M Stedman Francesca F Keys Charlie C Hall Nigel J NJ

Pediatric surgery international 20230130 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Percutaneous Endoscopically placed Gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are frequently used in children. The traditional endoscopic method to remove/change the PEG device requires general anaesthesia in children. A minimally invasive alternative is the 'Cut and Push' method (C&P): avoiding the risks/wait times of general anaesthesia and reducing resource burden. Data regarding the safety/effectiveness of C&P in children are lacking with concerns raised about the possibility of gastrointestina ...[more]

PMID: 36715765

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe peroral "pull" technique and the direct "push" procedure are the two main methods for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Although pull-PEG is generally recommended as the first-line modality, many oncological patients require a push-PEG approach to prevent tumor seeding or overcome tumor-related obstruction.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both PEG procedures in cancer patients.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed all consecutive PEG procedures within a tertiary oncological center. Patients were followed up with the hospital databases and National Cancer Registry to assess the technical success rate for PEG placement, the rate of minor and major adverse events (AEs), and 30-day mortality rates. We compared those outcomes between the two PEG techniques. Finally, risk factors for PEG-related adverse events were analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression model adjusted for patients' sex, age, performance status (ECOG), Body Mass Index (BMI), diabetes, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) status (pre-/current-/post-treatment), and type of PEG.ResultsWe included 1055 PEG procedures (58.7% push-PEG/41.4% pull-PEG) performed in 994 patients between 2014 and 2021 (mean age 62.0 [±10.7] yrs.; 70.2% males; indication: head-and-neck cancer 75.9%/other cancer 24.1%). The overall technical success for PEG placement was 96.5%. Although the "push" technique had a higher rate of all AEs (21.4% vs. 7.1%, Hazard Ratio [HR] = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.9-4.3, p < 0.001), most of these constituted minor AEs (71.9%), such as tube dislodgement. The methods had no significant difference regarding major AEs and 30-day mortality rates. Previous CRT was associated with an increased risk of major AEs (hazard ratio = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.0-7.2, p = 0.042).ConclusionThe risk of major AEs was comparable between the push- and pull-PEG techniques in cancer patients. Due to frequent tube dislodgement in push-PEG, the pull technique may be more suitable for long-term feeding. Previous CRT increases the risk of major AEs, favoring early ("prophylactic") PEG placement when such treatment is expected.

Dataset Information

'Cut and push' as an alternative to endoscopic retrieval of PEG type gastrostomy tubes.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

'Cut and push' as an alternative to endoscopic retrieval of PEG type gastrostomy tubes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets