Literature DB >> 18773341

Prospective randomized trial comparing the direct method using a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device with the pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

A Horiuchi1, Y Nakayama, N Tanaka, H Fujii, M Kajiyama.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route for long-term enteral feeding. The aim of this study was to compare a direct, modified introducer method using a bumper-button-type device with the standard pull method for PEG. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2005 and January 2007 consecutive patients with dysphagia were randomly assigned to PEG using either the direct method or the pull method. The direct method directly placed a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device assisted by dual gastropexy. The primary outcome measure was the rate of peristomal infections. Secondary measures included success rates, procedure times, and other complications. The long-term outcome measure was the need for catheter change within 180 days of the PEG procedure.
RESULTS: Of the 140 patients enrolled, 68 were assigned to the direct method and 72 to the pull method. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to clinical baseline parameters. The occurrence of peristomal infection within 30 days was significantly lower following the direct method (0 vs. 6, P = 0.028). The success rates and duration of both methods were similar (100% vs. 100%; 10.5 vs. 9.6 minutes, P = 0.48). The catheters used in the direct method required replacement significantly less often than those placed using the pull method (no catheter change in 180 days: 75% vs. 45.2%, P = 0.0019).
CONCLUSIONS: The direct method using a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device was associated with reduced peristomal infections in the early phase and reduced catheter changes compared with a 20 Fr catheter placed using the standard pull method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18773341     DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1077490

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  14 in total

1.  Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Felipe A Retes; Fabio S Kawaguti; Marcelo S de Lima; Bruno da Costa Martins; Ricardo S Uemura; Gustavo A de Paulo; Caterina Mp Pennacchi; Carla Gusmon; Adriana Vs Ribeiro; Elisa R Baba; Sebastian N Geiger; Mauricio P Sorbello; Marco A Kulcsar; Ulysses Ribeiro; Fauze Maluf-Filho
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.623

2.  Successful control of peristomal infection by introducer-type percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective historical control study.

Authors:  Chul-Hyun Lim; Jae Myung Park; Yu Kyung Cho; In Seok Lee; Sang Woo Kim; Myung-Gyu Choi; In-Sik Chung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-01-23       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Peritonitis related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for cancer patients.

Authors:  Shozo Osera; Tomonori Yano; Tomoyuki Odagaki; Yasuhiro Oono; Hiroaki Ikematsu; Atsushi Ohtsu; Kazuhiro Kaneko
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Risk factors and complications following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a case series of 1041 patients.

Authors:  Hans Juergen Richter-Schrag; Sabine Richter; Olaf Ruthmann; Manfred Olschewski; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Andreas Fischer
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Radiology guided antegrade GASTROSTOMY deployment of mushroom (pull type) catheters with classical and modified methods in patients with oropharyngeal, laryngeal carcinoma, and anesthesia risk.

Authors:  Süleyman Bakdık; Muharrem Keskin; Fatih Öncü; Osman Koç
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Pediatric Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Korea - When? By Whom? How?

Authors:  Yoon Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2022-10-17       Impact factor: 5.354

7.  Airway infection predisposes to peristomal infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with high concordance between sputum and wound isolates.

Authors:  Chiao-Hsiung Chuang; Kuei-Hsiang Hung; Jen-Ru Chen; Chiung-Yu Chen; Ai-Wen Kao; Wei-Lun Chang; Jiunn-Jong Wu; Bor-Shyang Sheu
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  Usefulness of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for supportive therapy of advanced aerodigestive cancer.

Authors:  Haruei Ogino; Hirotada Akiho
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2013-11-15

9.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Funada-style gastropexy greatly reduces the risk of peristomal infection.

Authors:  Naoki Okumura; Naoko Tsuji; Nobuto Ozaki; Nozomu Matsumoto; Takehisa Takaba; Masanori Kawasaki; Takafumi Tomita; Yasuko Umehara; Satoko Taniike; Masashi Kono; Masatoshi Kudo
Journal:  Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)       Date:  2015-01-06

10.  Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 435 cases.

Authors:  Paulo M O Campoli; Daniela M M Cardoso; Marília D Turchi; Flávio H Ejima; Orlando M Mota
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.