Who gets a PEG? An analysis of simultaneous PEG placement during elective laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair
Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) is an infrequent adjunct in elective paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR). Guidelines denote that PEG “may facilitate postoperative care in selected patients.” Though there is sparse literature defining which patients may benefit. The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with simultaneous PEG placement during PEHR and their subsequent outcomes.
The NSQIP database was queried from 2011 to 2016 for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic PEHR. Cases were excluded if PEHR or fundoplasty was not the primary procedure, a concomitant bariatric procedure was performed, or if the primary surgeon was not a general or cardiothoracic surgeon. Groups were Propensity Score Matched for age, BMI, and ASA Class.
15700 patients were identified, 371 who underwent simultaneous PEG placement (2.4%). Non-PEG patients were matched at a 5:1 ratio, producing 1855 controls. PEG patients had higher rates of pre-operative dyspnea (OR 1.45, p = 0.0110), pre-operative weight loss (OR 2.87, p = 0.0001), and lower pre-operative albumin (3.92 vs. 4.01, p = 0.0129). PEG patients had more intra-operative contamination (mean Wound Classification 1.54 vs. 1.38, p < 0.0001) and longer case durations (170 vs. 148 min, p < 0.0001). PEG patients had longer lengths of stay (3.4 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.0001), rates of superficial SSI (OR 5.82, p = 0.0012), peri-operative transfusions (OR 2.68, p = 0.0197), and pulmonary emboli (OR 3.61, p = 0.0359).
Patients undergoing simultaneous PEG during PEHR are more likely to have respiratory symptoms, markers of malnutrition, and intra-operative factors indicative of more technically challenging cases. These patients have longer hospitalizations, higher rates of superficial SSI, and more pulmonary emboli.
KeywordsPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy PEG Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia Laparoscopic
The authors received no funding or other support for the creation of this manuscript to include the following organizations: National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and other(s).
Compliance with ethical standards
Drs. Yheulon, Balla, Lin, and Davis have no conflicts of interest or any relevant financial ties to disclose.
- 7.Pryor AD, Oelschlager BK, Halbert CA, et al. Devil’s in the details: paraesophageal hernia repair. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Seattle, WA, 2018Google Scholar
- 13.Randolph JJ, Falbe K, Manuel AK, Balloun JL (2014) A step-by-step guide to propensity score matching in R. Pract Assess Res Eval 19(18):1–6Google Scholar
- 15.Skancke M, Brody F, Haskins IN, Amdur R, Schoolfield C (2018) Impact of operative times and mesh utilization on paraesophageal hernia repair: analysis of 30-day outcomes from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement project database. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 29:303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.American College of S. User Guide for the 2017 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File. American College of Surgeons Chicago, IL; 2018Google Scholar