One‐Step Insertion of Low‐Profile Gastrostomy in Pediatric Patients vs Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

• Published in: JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition 2016-03, Vol.40 (3), p.423-430
• Main Authors: Göthberg, Gunnar, Björnsson, Sigge
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: button gastrostomy; enteral feeding; gastropexy; pediatric; percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
• ISSN: 0148-6071; 1941-2444
• DOI: 10.1177/0148607114567202

Background: Standard care for initiation of enteral feeding in children has been pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pull‐PEG). As an alternative to pull‐PEG, a 1‐step endoscopic procedure for inserting a low‐profile gastrostomy tube “button” has been developed that allows initial placement of a balloon‐retained device. This report presents outcomes of metrics used to compare button placement with pull‐PEG in a pediatric population. Methods: Data were generated from procedural experiences of surgeons on pediatric patients (n = 374) with a variety of clinical indications for gastrostomy. Study population ages ranged from 6 days to 16 years, while weights were from 2–84 kg. Results: The button was successfully placed by the 1‐step procedure in 98% of the respective study population, and median procedural times were 20 and 15 minutes for button and pull‐PEG placements, respectively. Median times to first feeds were equivalent for the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG (6 hours), while times to first nutrition feeds were 12.5 and 10 hours, respectively. Stoma site complications within each study group were similar. Healthy stoma proportions were 65.2% and 73.2% in the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG groups, respectively, at first follow‐up. Conclusions: Similar study outcomes between the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG groups suggest that the former is a feasible alternative to pull‐PEG for initial tube placement in children. The 1‐step method involves a single procedure and reduces patient exposure to anesthesia, operating room time, and the potential for complications compared with a pull‐PEG requirement for multiple procedures.