Analysis of the results of the application of percutaneous puncture endoscopic gastrostomy technique
https://doi.org/10.17238/2072-3180-2024-2-12-22
Abstract
Introduction. Increase in application frequency of minimally invasive including endoscopic surgical techniques warrants the dilemma of choice the most rational, safe and effective surgical approach. The aim of the study was to compare the results of the two techniques of percutaneous puncture endoscopic gastrostomy (PPEG) – the «pull-technique» and «push-technique».
Material and methods. The results of PPEG were analyzed in 103 patients. All patients were divided into two groups: group 1 – 53 patients who underwent «pull-technique» PPEG and group 2 – 50 patients after PPEG by «push-technique». Treatment results. Technical results were achieved in 100 % of cases, upon that the «pull-technique» PPEG showed evident advantages. Accomplishment of the procedure was clinically effective in 100 % of patients of the 1st group and in 98 % of cases in the 2nd group (p > 0,05). Time of the procedure was 12,2±3,4 min in group 1 and 22,3±3,6 min in group 2 (p > 0,05). Overall complication rate comprised 13,5 % in both groups: 6 complications in group 1, 8 complications in the 2nd group. Incidence of 30-day mortality in group 1 was 5,7 % (3 patients) and 2 % in group 2 (1 patient).
Conclusion. PPEG in patients with dysphagia of various etiology is characterized by good results independently of whatever technique is applied. The «pull-technique» of PPEG is technically more simple.
About the Authors
Е. V. FrolovaRussian Federation
Frolova Ekaterina Vladimirovna – Candidate of Medical Sciences of the Department of Endoscopic Surgery, endoscopist
107150, st. Losinoostrovskaya, 39, Moscow
S. I. Emelyanov
Russian Federation
Emelyanov Sergey Ivanovich – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Department of Endoscopic Surgery
127006, st. Dolgorukovskaya 4, Moscow
Е. Кh. Samsonyan
Russian Federation
Edgar Khazhakovich Samsonyan – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Endoscopic Surgery
127006, st. Dolgorukovskaya 4
О. Е. Lutsevich
Russian Federation
Lutsevich Oleg Emmanuilovich – professor, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the department of faculty surgery No. 1
127006, st. Dolgorukovskaya 4, Moscow
D. Yu. Bogdanov
Russian Federation
Dmitry Yuryevich Bogdanov – MD, PhD, Professor of the Department of Endoscopic Surgery
127006, st. Dolgorukovskaya 4, Moscow
R. А. Bashirov
Russian Federation
Bashirov Ramil Azerovich – candidate of medical sciences, endoscopist
107150, st. Losinoostrovskaya, 39
М. А. Sekundova
Russian Federation
Sekundova Maria Aleksandrovna – oncologist
107150, st. Losinoostrovskaya, 39, Moscow
References
1. Arvanitakis M., Gkolfakis P., Despott E.J., Ballarin A., Beyna T., Boeykens K., Elbe P., Gisbertz I., Hoyois A., Mosteanu O., Sanders D.S., Schmidt P.T., Schneider S.M., van Hooft J.E. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients – Part 1: Definitions and indications. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy, 2021, № 53(1), pp. 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1303-7449
2. McClave S.A., DiBaise J.K., Mullin G.E., Martindale R.G. ACG Clinical Guideline: Nutrition therapy in the adult hospitalized patient. Am J Gastroenterol, 2016, № 111, pp. 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.28
3. Gauderer M. Twenty years of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: origin and evolution of a concept and its expanded applications. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1999, № 50, pp. 879–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70186-0
4. Stiegmann G.V., Goff J.S., Silas D., Pearlman N., Sun J., Norton L. Endoscopic versus operative gastrostomy: final results of a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1990, № 36, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(90)70911-x
5. Köhler G., Kalcher V., Koch O.O., Luketina R.R., Emmanuel K., Spaun G. Comparison of 231 patients receiving either “pull-through” or “push” percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 2015, № 29(1), pp. 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3673-9
6. Siu J., Fuller K., Nadler A., Pugash R., Cohen L., Deutsch K., Enepekides D., Karam I., Husain Z., Chan K., Singh S., Poon I., Higgins K., Xu B., Eskander A. Metastasis to gastrostomy sites from upper aerodigestive tract malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2020, № 91(5), pp. 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.045
7. Arvanitakis M., Gkolfakis P., Despott E.J., Ballarin A., Beyna T., Boeykens K., Elbe P., Gisbertz I., Hoyois A., Mosteanu O., Sanders D.S., Schmidt P.T., Schneider S.M., van Hooft J.E. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients – Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy, 2021, № 53(02), pp. 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1331-8080
8. Vujasinovic M., Ingre C., Silva F.B., Frederiksen F., Yu J., Elbe P. Complications and outcome of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in a highvolume centre. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2019, №54(4), pp.513-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2019.1594354
9. Bouchiba H., Jacobs M.A.J.M., Bouma G., Ramsoekh D. Outcomes of push and pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements in 854 patients: A single‐center study. JGH Open, 2022, № 6(1), pp. 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12694
10. Anderloni A., Di Leo M., Barzaghi F., Maconi G., Manes G., Gullota R. Complications and early mortality in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in lombardy: A multicenter prospective cohort study. Digestive and Liver Disease, 2019, № 51, pp. 1380–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2019.03.024
11. Rahnemai-Azar A.A., Rahnemaiazar A.A., Naghshizadian R., Kurtz A., Farkas DT. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, № 20, pp. 7739–7751. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7739
12. Koide T., Inamori M., Kusakabe A., Uchiyama T., Watanabe S., Lida H., Endo H., Hosono K., Sakamoto U., Fujita K., Takahashi H., Yoneda M., Tokoro C., Yasuzaki H., Goto A., Yasunobu A., Kobayashi, Kubota K., Saito S., Nahajima A. Early complications following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: results of use of a new direct technique. Hepatogastroenterology, 2010, № 57, pp. 1639–1644.
13. McClave S.A., Chang W.K. Complications of enteral access. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2003, № 58, pp. 739–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02147-3
14. Kim Y.S., Oh Y.L., Shon Y., Yang H.D., Lee S.I., Cho E.Y., Choi C.S., Seo G.S., Choi S.C., Na Y.H. A case of buried bumper syndrome in a patient with a balloon-tipped percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. Endoscopy, 2006, № 38(2), pp. E41–2. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-944675
15. Ikenaga Y., Kusunoki T., Yamaguchi H. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Reduces Aspiration Pneumonia Rate in Stroke Patients with Enteral Feeding in Convalescent Rehabilitation Wards. Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine, 2021, № 6, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2490%2Fprm.20210031
Review
For citations:
Frolova Е.V., Emelyanov S.I., Samsonyan Е.К., Lutsevich О.Е., Bogdanov D.Yu., Bashirov R.А., Sekundova М.А. Analysis of the results of the application of percutaneous puncture endoscopic gastrostomy technique. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2024;(2):12-22. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/2072-3180-2024-2-12-22