Cargando…

Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Aim. The present study aimed to perform a medico-surgical comparative analysis of the 2 most widely used techniques: gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, based on the vast clinical experience in an Upper Digestive Surgery Clinic. Materials and method. A retr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tudor, C, Branescu, C, Savlovschi, C, El-Khatib, A, Pantu, H, Nica, A, Dascalu, AM, Masoumeh, B, Tudor, AS, Oprescu, SM, Serban, D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Carol Davila University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27928446
_version_ 1782472606773936128
author Tudor, C
Branescu, C
Savlovschi, C
El-Khatib, A
Pantu, H
Nica, A
Dascalu, AM
Masoumeh, B
Tudor, AS
Oprescu, SM
Serban, D
author_facet Tudor, C
Branescu, C
Savlovschi, C
El-Khatib, A
Pantu, H
Nica, A
Dascalu, AM
Masoumeh, B
Tudor, AS
Oprescu, SM
Serban, D
author_sort Tudor, C
collection PubMed
description Aim. The present study aimed to perform a medico-surgical comparative analysis of the 2 most widely used techniques: gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, based on the vast clinical experience in an Upper Digestive Surgery Clinic. Materials and method. A retrospective study was carried out between January 2010 and January 2015 on the patients admitted for a surgical solution for feeding. The indications, preoperative preparation, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results. Out of the 94 cases admitted for a surgical solution for feeding, 67 underwent gastrostomy with peritoneal collar (GPC) and in 27 cases percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was performed. The indications for GPC were benign or malign causes of dysphagia, the most frequent being malign tumors of tongue, pharynx and larynx (47.76%), advanced inoperable esophageal or eso-cardiac cancers (26,86%), post-caustic esophageal stenosis (10.44%). PEG was performed in patients with functional difficulties of swallowing: sequelae of cerebral vascular accidents (44.44%), low Glasgow Coma Scale Score (29.62%) of different etiologies, Parkinson disease (18.51%) advanced dementia (7.4%), early nasopharyngeal cancer (2 cases). The intraoperatory and postoperatory complications were few and of minor importance in both techniques, but PEG allowed an immediate retake of alimentation (vs. at least 48 hours wait in GPC), with less gastric stasis, biliary reflux and aspiration related respiratory problems. Conclusions. Both techniques are easy and safe to perform, but an appropriate selection is required according to the cause of the swallowing difficulty. In cases with permeable digestive tube, PEG may be an excellent minimally invasive solution, but the costs and availability of the PEG kit and prehydrolyzed nutritive solution, as well as the co-existence of an upper digestive endoscopy service were limitations that had to be taken into account.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5141402
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Carol Davila University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51414022016-12-07 Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy Tudor, C Branescu, C Savlovschi, C El-Khatib, A Pantu, H Nica, A Dascalu, AM Masoumeh, B Tudor, AS Oprescu, SM Serban, D J Med Life Case Presentations Aim. The present study aimed to perform a medico-surgical comparative analysis of the 2 most widely used techniques: gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, based on the vast clinical experience in an Upper Digestive Surgery Clinic. Materials and method. A retrospective study was carried out between January 2010 and January 2015 on the patients admitted for a surgical solution for feeding. The indications, preoperative preparation, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results. Out of the 94 cases admitted for a surgical solution for feeding, 67 underwent gastrostomy with peritoneal collar (GPC) and in 27 cases percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was performed. The indications for GPC were benign or malign causes of dysphagia, the most frequent being malign tumors of tongue, pharynx and larynx (47.76%), advanced inoperable esophageal or eso-cardiac cancers (26,86%), post-caustic esophageal stenosis (10.44%). PEG was performed in patients with functional difficulties of swallowing: sequelae of cerebral vascular accidents (44.44%), low Glasgow Coma Scale Score (29.62%) of different etiologies, Parkinson disease (18.51%) advanced dementia (7.4%), early nasopharyngeal cancer (2 cases). The intraoperatory and postoperatory complications were few and of minor importance in both techniques, but PEG allowed an immediate retake of alimentation (vs. at least 48 hours wait in GPC), with less gastric stasis, biliary reflux and aspiration related respiratory problems. Conclusions. Both techniques are easy and safe to perform, but an appropriate selection is required according to the cause of the swallowing difficulty. In cases with permeable digestive tube, PEG may be an excellent minimally invasive solution, but the costs and availability of the PEG kit and prehydrolyzed nutritive solution, as well as the co-existence of an upper digestive endoscopy service were limitations that had to be taken into account. Carol Davila University Press 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5141402/ /pubmed/27928446 Text en ©Carol Davila University Press http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Case Presentations
Tudor, C
Branescu, C
Savlovschi, C
El-Khatib, A
Pantu, H
Nica, A
Dascalu, AM
Masoumeh, B
Tudor, AS
Oprescu, SM
Serban, D
Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
title Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
title_full Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
title_fullStr Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
title_full_unstemmed Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
title_short Gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
title_sort gastrostomy with peritoneal collar versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
topic Case Presentations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27928446
work_keys_str_mv AT tudorc gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT branescuc gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT savlovschic gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT elkhatiba gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT pantuh gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT nicaa gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT dascaluam gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT masoumehb gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT tudoras gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT oprescusm gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy
AT serband gastrostomywithperitonealcollarversuspercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomy