DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20184075

A prospective descriptive study to evaluate the impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients who require nutritional support

Ann Sunny, Venkatanarasimhan N. S., Anil Kumar

Abstract


Background: Patients who are unable to consume orally often require some form of nutritional support. Enteral is always better than the parenteral route. Enteral feeds via traditional nasogastric tube or nasojejunal route have been used for short term feeding but for long term management of these patients percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a better option. It does not require an operating room and has less morbidity associated with it.

Methods: We did a prospective descriptive study to look at the role of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in providing nutritional support to patients and the morbidity associated with this procedure.

Results: In this study, 83% of the patients needed PEG for head and neck cancers prior to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Most of our patients had no complications due to the procedure (70%). There was only one major complication of necrotizing fasciitis, the rest were all minor complications. The nutritional parameters checked at the beginning and at the end of the study were not statistically significant, for example weight, serum albumin and hemoglobin but all these parameters of the study patients were stable.

Conclusions: Authors found that long-term enteral feeding via PEG is a safe, effective, easy-to-apply, and highly acceptable method with minimal complications.


Keywords


Enteral nutrition, Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)

Full Text:

PDF

References


Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatric Surg. 1980;15(6):872-5.

Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy-20 years later: a historical perspective. J Pediatric Surg. 2001;36(1):217-9.

Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, Faigel DO, Goldstein JL, Johanson JF. Role of endoscopy in enteral feeding. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2002;55(7):794-7.

Chowdhury MA, Batey R. Complications and outcome of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in different patient groups. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996;11: 835-9.

Nicholson FB, Korman MG, Richardson MA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a review of indications, complications and outcome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15:21-5.

Kohli H, Bloch R. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a community hospital experience. Am Surg. 1995;61:191-4.

Grant JP. Comparision of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Stamm gastrostomy. Ann Surg. 1988;207:598-603.

Llaneza PP, Menendez AM, Roberts R, Dunn GD. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: clinical experience and follow up. South Med J. 1988;81:321-4.

Lowe JB, Page CP, Schwesinger WH, Gaskill HV, Stauffer JS. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in a surgical training program. Am J Surg. 1997;174:624-7.

Wasiljew BK, Ujiki GT, Beal JM. Feeding gastrostomy: complications and mortality. Am J Surg. 1982;143:194-5.

Ruge J, Vasquez RM. An analysis of the advantages of Stamm and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1986;162:13-16.

Steffes C, Weaver DW, Bouwman DL. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. New technique: old complications. Am Surg. 1989;55:273-7.

Sharma VK, Howden CW. Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:3133-6.

Dormann AJ, Wigginghaus B, Risius H. A single dose of ceftriaxone administered 30 minutes before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy significantly reduces local and systemic infective complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3220-4.

Akcan Y, Arslan M, Arslan S, Bayraktar Y, Kansu T, Varl K. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: the Hacettepe University Hospital experience. Turk. Klin. J. Gastroenterohepatol. 1999;10:23-7.