Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and PEG with jejunal extension.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Dec; 56(6):890-4.GE

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Jejunostomy tubes can be placed endoscopically by means of percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) or by direct percutaneous jejunostomy. These 2 techniques were retrospectively compared in patients requiring long-term jejunal feeding.

METHOD

An endoscopy database was used to identify all patients who underwent endoscopic jejunal feeding tube placement from January 1996 to May 2001. Patients with a history of upper GI surgery were excluded. There were 56 patients with a direct percutaneous jejunostomy and 49 with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Patients in the direct percutaneous jejunostomy group received a 20F direct jejunostomy tube; a 20F PEG tube with a 9F jejunal extension was used in the percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension group. Medical records for the period of 6 months after establishment of jejunal access were reviewed. Complications and need for further endoscopic intervention within this time frame were recorded. The duration of feeding tube patency (number of days from established jejunal access to first endoscopic reintervention) was compared for both groups.

RESULTS

Feeding tube patency was significantly longer in patients who had a direct percutaneous jejunostomy compared with those with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Within the 6-month period, 5 patients with a direct percutaneous jejunostomy required endoscopic reintervention for tube dysfunction compared with 19 patients who had a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who require long-term jejunal feeding, a direct percutaneous jejunostomy with a 20F tube provides more stable jejunal access compared with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension with a 9F extension and has a lower associated rate of endoscopic reintervention.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Medical Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

12447304

Citation

Fan, Andy C., et al. "Comparison of Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy and PEG With Jejunal Extension." Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 56, no. 6, 2002, pp. 890-4.
Fan AC, Baron TH, Rumalla A, et al. Comparison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and PEG with jejunal extension. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(6):890-4.
Fan, A. C., Baron, T. H., Rumalla, A., & Harewood, G. C. (2002). Comparison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and PEG with jejunal extension. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 56(6), 890-4.
Fan AC, et al. Comparison of Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy and PEG With Jejunal Extension. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(6):890-4. PubMed PMID: 12447304.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and PEG with jejunal extension. AU - Fan,Andy C, AU - Baron,Todd H, AU - Rumalla,Ashwin, AU - Harewood,Gavin C, PY - 2002/11/26/pubmed PY - 2003/3/27/medline PY - 2002/11/26/entrez SP - 890 EP - 4 JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy JO - Gastrointest. Endosc. VL - 56 IS - 6 N2 - BACKGROUND: Jejunostomy tubes can be placed endoscopically by means of percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) or by direct percutaneous jejunostomy. These 2 techniques were retrospectively compared in patients requiring long-term jejunal feeding. METHOD: An endoscopy database was used to identify all patients who underwent endoscopic jejunal feeding tube placement from January 1996 to May 2001. Patients with a history of upper GI surgery were excluded. There were 56 patients with a direct percutaneous jejunostomy and 49 with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Patients in the direct percutaneous jejunostomy group received a 20F direct jejunostomy tube; a 20F PEG tube with a 9F jejunal extension was used in the percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension group. Medical records for the period of 6 months after establishment of jejunal access were reviewed. Complications and need for further endoscopic intervention within this time frame were recorded. The duration of feeding tube patency (number of days from established jejunal access to first endoscopic reintervention) was compared for both groups. RESULTS: Feeding tube patency was significantly longer in patients who had a direct percutaneous jejunostomy compared with those with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Within the 6-month period, 5 patients with a direct percutaneous jejunostomy required endoscopic reintervention for tube dysfunction compared with 19 patients who had a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For patients who require long-term jejunal feeding, a direct percutaneous jejunostomy with a 20F tube provides more stable jejunal access compared with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension with a 9F extension and has a lower associated rate of endoscopic reintervention. SN - 0016-5107 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/12447304/Comparison_of_direct_percutaneous_endoscopic_jejunostomy_and_PEG_with_jejunal_extension_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016-5107(02)70366-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -