Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

[Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in pediatric patients: our experience and proposal of follow-up methodology].
Clin Ter. 2008 Jul-Aug; 159(4):243-8.CT

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in pediatric patients and to propose a data collection and follow-up methodology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Observational retrospective and prospective study on 33 pediatric patients and 5 adults with PEG, placed using Gauderer "push" technique, between 2000 and 2007. By means of an appropriate questionnaire, the following parameters were evaluated: complications, factors of further risk, nutritional status, management and acceptability of PEG.

RESULTS

No problems occurred during placement. Complications were few and easy to resolve. In 3 patients a stomal dehiscence occurred, strongly related to the tube gauge. During replacement, in 4 patients, bumper was not taken away because of difficult removal. 8 patients had pre-PEG Gastroesophageal reflux: In 2 of them, during the PEG placement, fundoplication was realized. Subsequently PEG procedure, only 1 patient needed fundoplication for worsening of GER. All of them continued gastroprotective treatment. Respiratory tract infections decreased in our 13 patients carries of tracheostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

To prefer smaller gauge reduces risk of dehiscence. If the bumper's removal is hard, to leave it inside is acceptable and quite safe, on condition of a careful surveillance of gastrointestinal obstruction signs. GER is not a contraindication of PEG. A careful follow-up is important, by recording all the evaluated parameters and by questionnaire to the family, during every hospital admission. This study, even if on few patients, confi rms PEG as the technique of choice for long-term enteral feeding, also in children. Training of family and caregivers is important to care.

Authors+Show Affiliations

U.O. Chirurgia Pediatrica, Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", Roma, Italia.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

ita

PubMed ID

18776981

Citation

Canali, R, et al. "[Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) in Pediatric Patients: Our Experience and Proposal of Follow-up Methodology]." La Clinica Terapeutica, vol. 159, no. 4, 2008, pp. 243-8.
Canali R, Sciascia Cannizzaro G, Scaldaferri A, et al. [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in pediatric patients: our experience and proposal of follow-up methodology]. Clin Ter. 2008;159(4):243-8.
Canali, R., Sciascia Cannizzaro, G., Scaldaferri, A., Retrosi, R., Contini, A. C., Buonuomo, V., & Pintus, C. (2008). [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in pediatric patients: our experience and proposal of follow-up methodology]. La Clinica Terapeutica, 159(4), 243-8.
Canali R, et al. [Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) in Pediatric Patients: Our Experience and Proposal of Follow-up Methodology]. Clin Ter. 2008 Jul-Aug;159(4):243-8. PubMed PMID: 18776981.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in pediatric patients: our experience and proposal of follow-up methodology]. AU - Canali,R, AU - Sciascia Cannizzaro,G, AU - Scaldaferri,A, AU - Retrosi,R, AU - Contini,A C, AU - Buonuomo,V, AU - Pintus,C, PY - 2008/9/9/pubmed PY - 2009/1/16/medline PY - 2008/9/9/entrez SP - 243 EP - 8 JF - La Clinica terapeutica JO - Clin Ter VL - 159 IS - 4 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in pediatric patients and to propose a data collection and follow-up methodology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective and prospective study on 33 pediatric patients and 5 adults with PEG, placed using Gauderer "push" technique, between 2000 and 2007. By means of an appropriate questionnaire, the following parameters were evaluated: complications, factors of further risk, nutritional status, management and acceptability of PEG. RESULTS: No problems occurred during placement. Complications were few and easy to resolve. In 3 patients a stomal dehiscence occurred, strongly related to the tube gauge. During replacement, in 4 patients, bumper was not taken away because of difficult removal. 8 patients had pre-PEG Gastroesophageal reflux: In 2 of them, during the PEG placement, fundoplication was realized. Subsequently PEG procedure, only 1 patient needed fundoplication for worsening of GER. All of them continued gastroprotective treatment. Respiratory tract infections decreased in our 13 patients carries of tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: To prefer smaller gauge reduces risk of dehiscence. If the bumper's removal is hard, to leave it inside is acceptable and quite safe, on condition of a careful surveillance of gastrointestinal obstruction signs. GER is not a contraindication of PEG. A careful follow-up is important, by recording all the evaluated parameters and by questionnaire to the family, during every hospital admission. This study, even if on few patients, confi rms PEG as the technique of choice for long-term enteral feeding, also in children. Training of family and caregivers is important to care. SN - 1972-6007 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18776981/[Percutaneous_endoscopic_gastrostomy__PEG__in_pediatric_patients:_our_experience_and_proposal_of_follow_up_methodology]_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -