Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

[Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for long-term nutrition--comparison of 2 different caliber tubes].
Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 1992 Oct 13; 81(42):1254-7.SR

Abstract

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is often used nowadays for long-term enteral nutrition in patients with swallowing disorders and severely altered esophageal-duodenal transit. The most common indications for gastrostomy tubes were neurological disturbances and malignancies of the oropharynx and esophagus. We compared in a prospective sequential trial PEG-tubes of two different sizes (2.9 mm [CH-9] vs. 4.8 mm [CH-15]) with respect to placement, complications, durability and handling. The tube was successfully placed in 51 of 52 patients (98%). In 1 patient placement was impossible due to missing diaphanoscopy. The mean observation period was 22 weeks for the CH-9-tubes (n = 28) and 14 weeks for the CH-15-tubes (n = 23). The only early complication was 1 case with a hemorrhage at the site of implantation (CH-15). In both groups 2 cases of local infection were noted. In the CH-9-group 2 PEG-tubes disappeared into the stomach and in 1 case a cicatricial granuloma developed. In the CH-15-group a leak occurred 10 days after implantation. All complications were treated conservatively. There was no causal relationship between the size of tube and the complications. The period of implantation was mostly limited by the death due to the underlying disease of the patient and was not related to the type of PEG-tube. We conclude the both PEG-tubes were easy to place, safe and effective means of providing enteral nutrition. We would, however, recommend CH-15-tubes for long-term nutrition, since in our experience they were less frequently obstructed and handling for the nurses was easier.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Medizinische Klinik, Gastroenterologie, Kantonsspital Liestal.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
English Abstract
Journal Article

Language

ger

PubMed ID

1411012

Citation

Meier, R, et al. "[Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) for Long-term Nutrition--comparison of 2 Different Caliber Tubes]." Schweizerische Rundschau Fur Medizin Praxis = Revue Suisse De Medecine Praxis, vol. 81, no. 42, 1992, pp. 1254-7.
Meier R, Bauerfeind P, Thumshirn M, et al. [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for long-term nutrition--comparison of 2 different caliber tubes]. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 1992;81(42):1254-7.
Meier, R., Bauerfeind, P., Thumshirn, M., Hoffmann, R., & Gyr, K. (1992). [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for long-term nutrition--comparison of 2 different caliber tubes]. Schweizerische Rundschau Fur Medizin Praxis = Revue Suisse De Medecine Praxis, 81(42), 1254-7.
Meier R, et al. [Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) for Long-term Nutrition--comparison of 2 Different Caliber Tubes]. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 1992 Oct 13;81(42):1254-7. PubMed PMID: 1411012.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for long-term nutrition--comparison of 2 different caliber tubes]. AU - Meier,R, AU - Bauerfeind,P, AU - Thumshirn,M, AU - Hoffmann,R, AU - Gyr,K, PY - 1992/10/13/pubmed PY - 1992/10/13/medline PY - 1992/10/13/entrez SP - 1254 EP - 7 JF - Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis = Revue suisse de medecine Praxis JO - Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax VL - 81 IS - 42 N2 - Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is often used nowadays for long-term enteral nutrition in patients with swallowing disorders and severely altered esophageal-duodenal transit. The most common indications for gastrostomy tubes were neurological disturbances and malignancies of the oropharynx and esophagus. We compared in a prospective sequential trial PEG-tubes of two different sizes (2.9 mm [CH-9] vs. 4.8 mm [CH-15]) with respect to placement, complications, durability and handling. The tube was successfully placed in 51 of 52 patients (98%). In 1 patient placement was impossible due to missing diaphanoscopy. The mean observation period was 22 weeks for the CH-9-tubes (n = 28) and 14 weeks for the CH-15-tubes (n = 23). The only early complication was 1 case with a hemorrhage at the site of implantation (CH-15). In both groups 2 cases of local infection were noted. In the CH-9-group 2 PEG-tubes disappeared into the stomach and in 1 case a cicatricial granuloma developed. In the CH-15-group a leak occurred 10 days after implantation. All complications were treated conservatively. There was no causal relationship between the size of tube and the complications. The period of implantation was mostly limited by the death due to the underlying disease of the patient and was not related to the type of PEG-tube. We conclude the both PEG-tubes were easy to place, safe and effective means of providing enteral nutrition. We would, however, recommend CH-15-tubes for long-term nutrition, since in our experience they were less frequently obstructed and handling for the nurses was easier. SN - 1013-2058 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/1411012/[Percutaneous_endoscopic_gastrostomy__PEG__for_long_term_nutrition__comparison_of_2_different_caliber_tubes]_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -