H-Index
10
Scimago Lab
powered by Scopus
eISSN: 2325-4416
call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon-Fri 10 am - 2 pm EST

Logo

MSMbanner
AmJCaseRep

Annals
ISI-Home

Clinical Features and Advantages of a Novel Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Method

Ning Cui, Yu Zhao, Jiwang Cao

Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China (mainland)

Med Sci Monit 2019; 25:9651-9657

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.918507

Available online:

Published: 2019-12-17


BACKGROUND: To study the clinical characteristics of novel percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the hospital records of 173 patients undergoing various methods of gastrostomy (a novel PEG, traditional PEG, and surgical gastrostomy). Clinical characteristics were analyzed. For the novel PEG, the operation was as same as the traditional method for initial steps until the annular guide wire was inserted. The following steps were different: water was injected through an injection port to expand the capsule, then the water sac was confirmed to be close to the gastric wall under endoscope, and, finally, the incision was sutured and covered.
RESULTS: Patient ages ranged from 42 to 93 years (60.8±9.2 years, 91 males and 82 females). Among all patients, there were 27 cases of brain trauma, 42 cases of cerebral infarction, 74 cases of esophageal or cardiac carcinoma, 21 cases of laryngocarcinoma, and 9 cases of Alzheimer disease. Clinical features were significantly better for novel PEG compared to traditional PEG: duration of operation (19.75±3.14 min vs. 37.86±5.33 min and 54.12±9.48 min, P<0.001), intraoperative blood loss (27.14±3.63 ml vs. 43.53±6.24 ml and 75.78±12.41 ml, P<0.001), postoperative pain score (1.12±0.19 pts vs. 3.85±0.44 pts and 6.22±1.06 pts; P<0.001), infection rate (1.35% vs. 3.77% and 2.17%, P<0.001), length of hospital stay (3.16±0.42 d vs. 5.68±0.78 d and 8.29±1.31 d, P<0.001), and time to free activity (2.24±0.26h vs. 3.74±0.48 h and 14.85±2.38 d, P<0.001). The incidence of complications such as wound infection (1.35% vs. 3.77% and 4.76%), vomiting (1.35% vs. 5.66% and 6.52%), and nausea (2.70% vs. 1.88% and 6.52%) in the novel PEG group was lower than in the other groups (P<0.0001). Improved outcomes were obtained without increased medical costs in the novel PEG group.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with difficult postoperative oral nutrition, the novel PEG treatment resulted in overall better clinical outcomes than traditional PEG.

Keywords: Administration, Cutaneous, Endoscopy, Digestive System, Gastrostomy, Nutritional Support



Back