NAZIM EKİN, MENDUH ORUÇ, Elif Tuğba TUNCER, Kendal YALÇIN

Perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi uygulama sonuçlarımız: 113 olgunun değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmamızda perkutan endoskopik gastrosto- mi uygulanan hastalarda bulduğumuz sonuçları ve tecrü- belerimizi sunmayı amaçladık. Yöntemler: 01 Ocak 2012 31 Aralık 2014 tarihleri ara- sında Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Gastroenteroloji Kliniğince endoskopi ünitesi ve yoğun bakımlarda hasta yatağında perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi tüpü takılan 113 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Hasta kayıtları endikasyon, komplikasyon ve sonuçlar açısından değerlendirildi. Bulgular: PEG uygulanan 113 hastanın 70i (%61,9) er- kek, 40ı (%38,1) ise kadındı. Hastaların 8inde (%7) baş, boyun ve özofagus tümörü tanısı varken 105inin (%93) primer ya da sekonder nörolojik hastalığı mevcuttu. İşlem sonrası hiçbir hastamızda ciddi komplikasyon görülme- di. Yara yeri enfeksiyonu 5 hastada (%4,4) gelişmiş olup minör komplikasyon oranı %9,7 olarak saptandı. Kompli- kasyon gelişme riski altmış yaş üstünde ve erkek hasta- larda daha yüksek saptandı (sırasıyla p değerleri 0.049 ve 0.022). Sonuç: Basit, güvenli ve komplikasyon oranı düşük bir enteral beslenme yöntemi olan perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi, uzun süreli enteral beslenme için öncelikle başvurulması gereken beslenme yöntemidir. İleri yaş ve erkek cinsiyette komplikasyon riski artmıştır

The results of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion: Analysis of 113 cases

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the results and experiences of the patients who received percutane- ous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Methods: A total of 113 patients who admitted to the Dicle University Medical Faculty , Department of Gastro- enterology between January 2012 and December 2014 and in whom received PEG was performed. The patients were assessed in terms of indications, complications and results. Results: Among these patients, 70 (61.9%) were male and 40 (38.1%) were female. Though 8 (7%) patients had head, neck and esophageal cancer; 105 (93%) pa- tients had primer or seconder neurological disorders. After the PEG, any serious complication was seen in pa- tients. Wound infections were encountered in five patients (4.4%) and the rate of minor complications was found to be 9.7%. The risk of complications was higher in patients over sixty years and men (p values of 0.049 and 0.022). Conclusion: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, a simple and safe method of enteral nutrition with a low complication rate, should be the first choice when extend- ed period enteral nutrition is required. There is increased risk of complications in elderly males.

PDF

___

1. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Drover JW, et al. Canadian clini- cal practice guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients. JPEN J Parenter En- teral Nutr 2003;27:355-373. 2. Gauderer MWL, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Paedi- atr Surg 1980;15:872875. 3. Role of PEG/PEJ in enteral feeding. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (No author listed). Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:699-701. 4. Kirby DF, Delegge MH, Fleming CR. American Gastroen- terological Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1995;108:1282-1301. 5. Çakır M, Tekin A, Küçükkartallar T, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies. Dicle Tıp Der- gisi 2012; 39:162-165. 6. Tokunaga T, Kubo T, Ryan S. Long-term outcome after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2008;8:19-23. 7. Bassett MR, Dobie RA. Patterns of nutritional deficiency in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983;91:119-125. 8. Baschnagel AM, Yadav S, Marina O, et al. Toxicities and costs of placing prophylactic and reactive percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with chemoradiotherapy. Head Neck 2014;36:1155-1161. 9. Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donelly MT, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous gastrostomy and nasogastric feding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ 1996;312:13-16. 10. Varnier A, Iona L, Dominutti MC, et al. Percutaneous en- doscopic gastrostomy: complications in the short and long- term follow up and efficacy on nutritional status. Eura Medicophys 2006;42:23-26. 11. Jain NK, Larson DE, Schroeder KW, et al. Antibiotic pro- phylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a pro- spective, randomized double blind clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:824-828. 12. Löser C, Aschl G, Hébuterne X, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition-percutaneous endoscopic gastros- tomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005;24:848-861.