Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Dec;28(12):1781-7.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.12.1781. Epub 2013 Nov 26.

Comparison of complications between endoscopic and percutaneous replacement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of complications between endoscopic and percutaneous replacement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes

Chang Geun Lee et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

When replacing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes, an internal bolster may be retrieved either percutaneously or endoscopically. The aim of this study was to compare the complications of percutaneous and endoscopic method during PEG tube replacement. The medical records of 330 patients who received PEG tube replacement were retrospectively analyzed. According to the removal method of internal bolster, we categorized as endoscopic group and percutaneous group. Demographic data, procedure-related complications and risk factors were investigated. There were 176 cases (53.3%) in endoscopic group and 154 cases (46.7%) in percutaneous group. The overall immediate complication rate during PEG tube replacement was 4.8%. Bleeding from the stoma (1.3%) occurred in percutaneous group, whereas esophageal mucosal laceration (7.4%) and microperforation (0.6%) occurred in endoscopic group. The immediate complication rate was significantly lower in the percutaneous method (OR, 6.57; 95% CI, 1.47-29.38, P=0.014). In multivariate analysis, old age was a significant risk factor of esophageal laceration and microperforation during PEG tube replacement (OR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.04-14.07, P=0.043). The percutaneous method may be more safe and feasible for replacing PEG tubes than the endoscopic method in old patients.

Keywords: Complications; Gastrostomy; Methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Photographs of removal. (A) Percutaneous method: PEG tube can be removed by pulling the PEG tube out of the abdominal wall. (B) Endoscopic method: Remnant tube adjacent to the bumper was captured the snare under endoscopic guide, then, it was retrieved out of the mouth.

References

    1. Safadi BY, Marks JM, Ponsky JL. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an update. Endoscopy. 1998;30:781–789. - PubMed
    1. Mendiratta P, Tilford JM, Prodhan P, Curseen K, Azhar G, Wei JY. Trends in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in the elderly from 1993 to 2003. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2012;27:609–613. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roche V. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: clinical care of PEG tubes in older adults. Geriatrics. 2003;58:22–29. - PubMed
    1. Turner JK, Berrill JW, Dolwani S, Green JT, Swift G. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube replacement. Endoscopy. 2010;42:E146–E147. - PubMed
    1. Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, Seamon MJ, Lukaszczyk JJ, Martin ND, Hoey BA, Stawicki SP. Complications related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes: a comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2007;16:407–418. - PubMed

Publication types