Complication rate lower after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy than after surgical gastrostomy: a prospective, randomized trial

Article

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has increasingly replaced surgical gastrostomy (SG) as the primary procedure for the long-term nutrition of patients with swallowing disorders. This prospective randomized study compares PEG with SG in terms of effectiveness and safety.

Methods

This study enrolled 70 patients with swallowing disorders, mainly attributable to neurologic impairment. All the patients, eligible for both techniques, were randomized to PEG (pull method) or SG. The groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index, and underlying diseases. Complications were reported 7 and 30 days after the operative procedure.

Results

The procedures were successfully completed for all the patients. The median operative time was 15 min for PEG and 35 min for SG (p < 0.001). The rate of complications was lower for PEG (42.9%) than for SG (74.3%; p < 0.01). The 30-day mortality rates were 5.7% for PEG and 14.3% for SG (nonsignificant difference).

Conclusion

The findings show PEG to be an efficient method for gastrostomy tube placement with a lower complication rate than SG. In addition, PEG is faster to perform and requires fewer medical resources. The authors consider PEG to be the primary procedure for gastrostomy tube placement.

Keywords

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy Surgical gastrostomy Swallowing disorders Stomach Complications 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Miss Linda Axelsson and Mrs Nina Grönholm for invaluable help with the follow-up assessment, and to Mrs Ulrika Dovner and Mrs Lena Andersson at the endoscopy suite for excellent technical assistance.

References

  1. 1.
    Akkerdijk WL, van Bergeijk JD, van Egmond T, Mulder CJJ, van Berge Henegouwen van der Werken C, van Erpecum KJ (1995) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): comparison of push and pull methods and evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis. Endoscopy 27: 313–316Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergstrom LR, Larson DE, Zinsmeister AR, Sarr MG, Silverstein MD (1995) Utilisation and outcomes of surgical gastrostomies and jejunostomies in an era of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a population-based study. Mayo Clin Proc 70: 829–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Callahan CM, Haag KM, Weinberger M, Tierney WM, Buchanan NN, Stump TE, Nisi R (2000) Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 48: 1048–1054PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cosentini EP, Sautner T, Gnant M, Winkelbauer F, Teleky B, Jakesz R (1998) Outcomes of surgical, percutaneous endoscopic, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomies. Arch Surg 133: 1076–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dormann AJ, Wigginghaus B, Risius H, Kleimann F, Kloppenborg A, Grunewald T, Huchzermeyer H (1999) A single dose of ceftriaxone administered 30 minutes before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy significantly reduces local and systemic infective complications. Am J Gastroenterol 94: 3220–3224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrsson YT, Langius-Eklof A, Bark T, Laurell G (2004) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a long-term follow-up study in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Otolaryngol 29: 740–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gauderer MWL, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr (1980) Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 15: 872–875PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gencosmanoglu R, Koc D, Tozun N (2003) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: results of 115 cases. Hepatogastroenterology 50: 886–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant JP (1998) Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Stamm gastrostomy. Ann Surg 207: 598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ho HS, Ngo H (1999) Gastrostomy for enteral access: a comparison among placement by laparotomy, laparoscopy, and endoscopy. Surg Endosc 13: 991–994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones M, Santanello SA, Falcone RE (1990) Percutaneous endoscopic vs surgical gastrostomy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 14: 533–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klose J, Heldwein W, Rafferzeder M, Sernetz F, Gross M, Loeschke K (2003) Nutritional status and quality of life in patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in practice: prospective one-year follow-up. Dig Dis Sci 48: 2057–2063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larson DE, Burton DD, Schroeder KW, DiMagno EP (1987) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, success, complications, and mortality in 314 consecutive patients. Gastroenterology 93: 48–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mamel JJ (1989) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Am J Gastroenterol 84: 703–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller RE, Castlemain B, Lacqua FJ, Kotler DP (1989) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: results in 316 patients and review of literature. Surg Endosc 3: 186–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller RE, Kummer BA, Tiszenkel HI, Kotler DP (1986) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: procedure of choice. Ann Surg 204: 543–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moller P, Lindberg CG, Zilling T (1999) Gastrostomy by various techniques: evaluation of indications, outcome, and complications. Scand J Gastroenterol 34: 1050–1054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgenstern L, Laquer M, Treyzon L (2005) Ethical challenges of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Surg Endosc 19: 398–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oyogoa S, Schein M, Gardezi S, Wise L (1999) Surgical feeding gastrostomy: are we overdoing it? J Gastrointest Surg 3: 152–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersen TI, Kruse A (1997) Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Eur J Surg 163: 351–356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ponsky JL, Gauderer MWL, Stellato TA (1983) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: review of 150 cases. Arch Surg 118: 913–914PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rabaneck L, McCullough LB, Wray NP (1997) Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet 349: 496–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanders DS, Carter MJ, D’Silva J, James G, Bolton RB, Bardhan KD (2000) Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia. Am J Gastroenterol 95: 1472–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanders DS, Carter MJ, D’Silva J, McAlindon ME, Willemse PJ, Bardham KD (2001) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a prospective analysis of hospital support required and complications following discharge to the community. Eur J Clin Nutr 55: 610–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott JS, de la Torre RA, Unger SW (1991) Comparison of operative versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in the elderly. Am Surg 57: 338–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sheehan JJ, Hill AD, Fanning NP, Healy C, McDermott EW, O’Donoghue DP, O’Higgins (2003) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: 5 years of clinical experience on 238 patients. Ir Med J 96: 265–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Skelly RH, Kupfer RM, Metcalfe ME, Allison SP, Holt M, Hull MA, Rawlings JK (2002) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): change in practice since 1988. Clin Nutr 21: 389–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stiegmann GV, Goff JS, Silas D, Pearlman N, Sun J, Norton L (1990) Endoscopic versus operative gastrostomy: final results of a prospective randomised trial. Gastrointest Endosc 36: 1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stuart SP, Tiley EH, Boland JP (1993) Feeding gastrostomy: a critical review of its indications and mortality rate. South Med J 86: 169–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilkinson WA, Pickleman J (1982) Feeding gastrostomy: a reappraisal. Am Surg 48: 273–275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wollman B, D’Agostino HB, Walus-Wigle JR, Easter DW, Beale A (1995) Radiologic, endoscopic, and surgical gastrostomy: an institutional evaluation and meta-analysis of the literature. Radiology 197: 699–704PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations