BACKGROUND: A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be performed as a direct stomach puncture, known as Seldinger technique ("push") or a thread pulling method ("pull"). The aim of this study was to compare the final results deriving from both application methods. METHODS: Data of all pull-through-PEG and push-PEG applications, which had been carried out in our department from 2009 to 2012, were analyzed and compared retrospectively. Data collection included patients' demographics, indications, comorbidities, peri-interventional chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and divided in early- and late-term complications (before and after 10 days after PEG insertion). RESULTS: A total of 231 patients received a PEG. Of these, 131 (56.7 %) were treated with pull-through-PEGs and 100 (43.3 %) with the push-PEG method. Overall, in 61 of 231 (26.4 %) patients, a complication was documented and 37 of 61 (60.6 %) were assigned to Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Only 5 of 231 patients (2.2 %) required a re-intervention or surgical treatment under general anesthesia. The overall complication rate was significantly increased by the type of push-PEG tube used (push 33/100 = 33 vs. pull 28/131 = 21.4 %, p = 0.047). A dislocation of the tube was noticed in 5/131 (3.8 %) cases of pull-PEGs and 12/100 (12 %) cases of push PEGs (p = 0.018). An occlusion of the PEG also occurred significantly more frequent in connection with the push-PEG (10/100 = 10 vs. 1/131 = 0.8 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both PEG techniques are safe and well established. Push PEG showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications, dislocations, and occlusions. The decision which PEG tube should be used depends on individual conditions with preference of push-PEGs in patients with head, neck, and esophageal cancer.
BACKGROUND: A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be performed as a direct stomach puncture, known as Seldinger technique ("push") or a thread pulling method ("pull"). The aim of this study was to compare the final results deriving from both application methods. METHODS: Data of all pull-through-PEG and push-PEG applications, which had been carried out in our department from 2009 to 2012, were analyzed and compared retrospectively. Data collection included patients' demographics, indications, comorbidities, peri-interventional chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and divided in early- and late-term complications (before and after 10 days after PEG insertion). RESULTS: A total of 231 patients received a PEG. Of these, 131 (56.7 %) were treated with pull-through-PEGs and 100 (43.3 %) with the push-PEG method. Overall, in 61 of 231 (26.4 %) patients, a complication was documented and 37 of 61 (60.6 %) were assigned to Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Only 5 of 231 patients (2.2 %) required a re-intervention or surgical treatment under general anesthesia. The overall complication rate was significantly increased by the type of push-PEG tube used (push 33/100 = 33 vs. pull 28/131 = 21.4 %, p = 0.047). A dislocation of the tube was noticed in 5/131 (3.8 %) cases of pull-PEGs and 12/100 (12 %) cases of push PEGs (p = 0.018). An occlusion of the PEG also occurred significantly more frequent in connection with the push-PEG (10/100 = 10 vs. 1/131 = 0.8 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both PEG techniques are safe and well established. Push PEG showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications, dislocations, and occlusions. The decision which PEG tube should be used depends on individual conditions with preference of push-PEGs in patients with head, neck, and esophageal cancer.
Authors: Subhas Banerjee; Bo Shen; Todd H Baron; Douglas B Nelson; Michelle A Anderson; Brooks D Cash; Jason A Dominitz; S Ian Gan; M Edwyn Harrison; Steven O Ikenberry; Sanjay B Jagannath; David Lichtenstein; Robert D Fanelli; Ken Lee; Trina van Guilder; Leslie E Stewart Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Fatih Ermis; Melih Ozel; Kemal Oncu; Yusuf Yazgan; Levent Demirturk; Ahmet Kemal Gurbuz; Taner Akyol; Hasan Nazik Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Walter Wilson; Kathryn A Taubert; Michael Gewitz; Peter B Lockhart; Larry M Baddour; Matthew Levison; Ann Bolger; Christopher H Cabell; Masato Takahashi; Robert S Baltimore; Jane W Newburger; Brian L Strom; Lloyd Y Tani; Michael Gerber; Robert O Bonow; Thomas Pallasch; Stanford T Shulman; Anne H Rowley; Jane C Burns; Patricia Ferrieri; Timothy Gardner; David Goff; David T Durack Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 29.690
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
Authors: Claudio A R Gomes; Régis B Andriolo; Cathy Bennett; Suzana A S Lustosa; Delcio Matos; Daniel R Waisberg; Jaques Waisberg Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-05-22