Dwyer Kevin M, Watts Dorraine D, Thurber John S, Benoit Ronnie S, Fakhry Samir M
Department of Trauma Services, Inova Regional Trauma Center, Falls Church, Virginia 22042-3300, USA.
J Trauma. 2002 Jan;52(1):26-32. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200201000-00007.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether gastric feeding tubes placed by the percutaneous endoscopic route resulted in fewer and less severe complications than open surgical gastrostomy (SG).
Charts for all trauma patients admitted 1/94 to 12/98, which had an electively placed feeding tube, were individually reviewed. All tube-related complications were recorded. Of 8119 patients screened, 158 (1.9%) met inclusion criteria. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs) were placed in 95 (60.1%) and surgical gastrostomies in 63 (39.9%). Most patients (79.1%) had AIS 3 or greater head or spinal cord injury as the primary diagnosis leading to tube placement.
Overall, SG patients were 5.4 times more likely than PEG patients to have a complication from their gastrostomy tube (95% CI, 2.1-13.8). They were 2.6 times more likely to have a major complication (internal leakage, dehiscence, peritonitis, and fistula), and 5.5 times more likely to have a minor complication (unplanned removal, dislodgment, external leak, skin infection, and nonfunction). The groups did not differ on ISS, ICU LOS, total LOS, or mortality (p > 0.05). Overall, a total of 39 individual complications related to tube placement were noted in 26 separate patients (PEG, 7; SG, 19). All four of the major complications requiring operative intervention were in the SG group. There were 31 minor complications, 8 in the PEG group and 27 in the SG group. Mean total charges for placement were also significantly lower in the PEG group than the SG group ($1271 vs. $2761, p < 0.001)
Gastrostomy tubes placed via the percutaneous endoscopic route had a significantly lower complication rate than surgically placed tubes. In addition, the charges incurred for their placement were also significantly less. Based on the findings of this study, PEG should be considered as the method of choice for gastric feeding tube placement for trauma patients who do not have specific contraindications to the procedure.
本研究旨在确定经皮内镜途径放置胃饲管是否比开放性手术胃造口术(SG)导致的并发症更少且更轻。
对1994年1月至1998年12月期间所有择期放置饲管的创伤患者的病历进行逐一审查。记录所有与饲管相关的并发症。在8119例筛查患者中,158例(1.9%)符合纳入标准。其中95例(60.1%)接受经皮内镜胃造口术(PEG),63例(39.9%)接受手术胃造口术。大多数患者(79.1%)的主要诊断为AIS 3级或更高级别的头部或脊髓损伤,这导致了饲管的放置。
总体而言,SG患者胃造口管出现并发症的可能性是PEG患者的5.4倍(95%可信区间,2.1 - 13.8)。他们出现严重并发症(内部渗漏、裂开、腹膜炎和瘘管)的可能性是PEG患者的2.6倍,出现轻微并发症(意外拔除、移位、外部渗漏、皮肤感染和功能障碍)的可能性是PEG患者的5.5倍。两组在损伤严重度评分(ISS)、重症监护病房住院时间(ICU LOS)、总住院时间或死亡率方面无差异(p > 0.05)。总体而言,在26例不同患者中总共记录到39例与饲管放置相关的个体并发症(PEG组7例;SG组19例)。所有4例需要手术干预的严重并发症均在SG组。有31例轻微并发症,PEG组8例,SG组27例。PEG组的平均放置总费用也显著低于SG组(1271美元对2761美元,p < 0.001)。
经皮内镜途径放置的胃造口管并发症发生率显著低于手术放置的胃造口管。此外,放置胃造口管的费用也显著更低。基于本研究结果,对于没有该操作特定禁忌证的创伤患者,PEG应被视为胃饲管放置的首选方法。