Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 686–695 | Cite as

Who gets a PEG? An analysis of simultaneous PEG placement during elective laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

  • Christopher G. YheulonEmail author
  • Fadi M. Balla
  • Edward Lin
  • S. Scott DavisJr.



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.


Percutaneous 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.

Supplementary material

464_2019_6815_MOESM1_ESM.docx (123 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 122 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kohn GP, Price RR, DeMeester SR et al (2013) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 27(12):4409–4428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Ponsky JL et al (2001) Minimally invasive management of paraesophageal herniation in the high-risk surgical patient. Am J Surg 182(5):510–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yates RB, Hinojosa MW, Wright AS, Pellegrini CA, Oelschlager BK (2015) Laparoscopic gastropexy relieves symptoms of obstructed gastric volvulus in highoperative risk patients. Am J Surg 209(5):875–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klinginsmith M, Jolley J, Lomelin D, Krause C, Heiden J, Oleynikov D (2016) Paraesophageal hernia repair in the emergency setting: is laparoscopy with the addition of a fundoplication the new gold standard? Surg Endosc 30(5):1790–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antiporda M, Veenstra B, Jackson C, Kandel P, Daniel Smith C, Bowers SP (2018) Laparoscopic repair of giant paraesophageal hernia: are there factors associated with anatomic recurrence? Surg Endosc 32(2):945–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mittal SK, Bikhchandani J, Gurney O, Yano F, Lee T (2011) Outcomes after repair of the intrathoracic stomach: objective follow-up of up to 5 years. Surg Endosc 25(2):556–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Chimukangara M, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Rein LE, Szabo A, Gould JC (2016) The impact of frailty on outcomes of paraesophageal hernia repair. J Surg Res 202(2):259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chimukangara M, Helm MC, Frelich MJ et al (2017) A 5-item frailty index based on NSQIP data correlates with outcomes following paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 31(6):2509–2519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark LN, Helm MC, Higgins R et al (2018) The impact of preoperative anemia and malnutrition on outcomes in paraesophageal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 32:4666–4672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parker DM, Rambhajan AA, Horsley RD, Johanson K, Gabrielsen JD, Petrick AT (2017) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is safe in elderly patients. Surg Endosc. 31(3):1186–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Austin PC (2010) Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol 172(9):1092–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Spaniolas K, Laycock WS, Adrales GL, Trus TL (2014) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: advanced age is associated with minor but not major morbidity or mortality. J Am Coll Surg 218(6):1187–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ et al (2010) Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg 210(6):901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naoum C, Kritharides L, Ing A, Falk GL, Yiannikas J (2017) Changes in lung volumes and gas trapping in patients with large hiatal hernia. Clin Respir J 11(2):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamelhar D, Singh G, McGoldrick M, Vandenberge J, Sonett J, Ginsburg M (2017) Impact of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair on respiratory function and dyspnea: a single institutional study. Chest 152(4):A946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Low DE, Simchuk EJ (2002) Effect of paraesophageal hernia repair on pulmonary function. Ann Thorac Surg 74(2):333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ljungdahl M, Sundbom M (2006) Complication rate lower after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy than after surgical gastrostomy: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc 20(8):1248–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neville HL, Lally KP (2001) Pediatric surgical wound infections. Semin Pediatr Inf Dis 12(2):124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Snyder RA, Johnson L, Tice J et al (2013) Wound classification in pediatric general surgery: significant variation exists among providers. J Am Coll Surg 217(5):819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aloia TA, Cooper A, Shi W, Vauthey JN, Lee JE (2014) Reoperative surgery: a critical risk factor for complications inadequately captured by operative reporting and coding of lysis of adhesions. J Am Coll Surg 219(1):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nguyen NT, Luketich JD, Friedman DM, Ikramuddin S, Schauer PR (1999) Pulmonary embolism following laparoscopic antireflux surgery: a case report and review of the literature. JSLS. 3(2):149–153PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim JY, Khavanin N, Rambachan A et al (2015) Surgical duration and risk of venous thromboembolism. JAMA Surg 150(2):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shonyela FS, Yang S, Liu B, Jiao J (2015) Postoperative acute pulmonary embolism following pulmonary resections. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 21(5):409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM et al (2012) Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 141(2 Suppl):e227S–e277SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Richardson WS, Hamad GG, Stefanidis D (2017) SAGES VTE prophylaxis for laparoscopic surgery guidelines: an update. Surg Endosc 31(2):501–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alluri RK, Leland H, Heckmann N (2016) Surgical research using national databases. Ann Transl Med. 4(20):393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    American College of S. User Guide for the 2017 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File. American College of Surgeons Chicago, IL; 2018Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lidor AO, Steele KE, Stem M, Fleming RM, Schweitzer MA, Marohn MR (2015) Long-term quality of life and risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia. JAMA Surg 150(5):424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kyle-Leinhase I, Kockerling F, Jorgensen LN et al (2018) Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project. Hernia 22(4):561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of General and GI SurgeryEmory University HospitalAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryKaiser Westside Medical CenterHillsboroUSA

Personalised recommendations