Safety and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children

1994 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 1506-1507
Author(s):  
Richard R. Ricketts
Author(s):  
Eva Sulaeman ◽  
Eberhard Schmidt-Sommerfeld ◽  
Raynorda F. Brown ◽  
Elizabeth E. Mannick ◽  
John N. Udall

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 993-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wael El-Matary

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy has been a valuable tool in nutritional rehabilitation since its inception in 1980. Although it was originally described in children, a large sector of the adult population is dependant on it for nutritional support. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion is generally a safe procedure. Nevertheless, variable incidence rates of complications have been reported. The present review highlights the up-to-date indications, contraindications and complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children, along with a discussion of issues that need further exploring through future research.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14012-e14012
Author(s):  
Pankaj G Vashi ◽  
Donald Peter Braun ◽  
Brenten Popiel ◽  
Digant Gupta

e14012 Background: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement in advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis with bowel obstruction is a feasible palliative procedure to help patients with obstructive symptoms. We describe the safety and efficacy of using PEG tube for decompression in patients with large peritoneal masses. Methods: A consecutive case series of 62 patients (Apr-08 to Jun-11) with advanced abdominal carcinomatosis induced bowel obstruction. All patients were extensively treated for their cancer. None of them were surgical candidates due to extensive peritoneal involvement. All patients had symptoms of nausea, vomiting and pain at the time of PEG tube placement. All patients had a 28F (Bard) PEG tube placed for drainage. The primary outcomes of interest were complications and symptom resolution due to PEG tube placement. Frequency of nausea, vomiting and severity of pain was recorded daily in patient charts. Results: 16 were males and 46 females. The mean age was 50.5 years. Most common cancers were ovary, pancreas, colon and stomach. Of 62 patients, 57 patients had expired at the time of this analysis. Of those 57 expired, 49 had PEG tube at the time of death, while 8 had complete resolution of symptoms with PEG tube removed before death. The 5 out of 62 patients who are alive still have the PEG tube for drainage (average 70.4 days). The average duration of PEG tube placement for all patients combined was 70.9 days (range 6-312 days). Relief of nausea, vomiting and pain was observed in 53 (85.5%), 55 (88.7%) and 35 (56.5%) patients respectively. Of a total of 43 patients who had PEG tube placed for >= 30 days, 24 (56%) could continue with their chemotherapy cycles because of symptom resolution. Non life threatening complications of PEG tube placement were observed in 9 (14.5%) patients. 3 had infection at the insertion site, 2 had bleeding and 3 had leaking at the PEG tube site while 1 had aspiration. 6 (9.7%) patients required replacement of the PEG tube due to occlusion. Conclusions: Placement of PEG tube in presence of advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis is safe and effective in relieving obstructive symptoms as well as extending the period of active cancer therapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document