Suppr超能文献

231例接受“拖出式”或“推入式”经皮内镜下胃造口术患者的比较。

Comparison of 231 patients receiving either "pull-through" or "push" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

作者信息

Köhler Gernot, Kalcher Veronika, Koch Oliver O, Luketina Ruzica-R, Emmanuel Klaus, Spaun Georg

机构信息

Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Sisters of Charity Hospital, 4010, Linz, Austria,

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2015 Jan;29(1):170-5. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3673-9. Epub 2014 Jul 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be performed as a direct stomach puncture, known as Seldinger technique ("push") or a thread pulling method ("pull"). The aim of this study was to compare the final results deriving from both application methods.

METHODS

Data of all pull-through-PEG and push-PEG applications, which had been carried out in our department from 2009 to 2012, were analyzed and compared retrospectively. Data collection included patients' demographics, indications, comorbidities, peri-interventional chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and divided in early- and late-term complications (before and after 10 days after PEG insertion).

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients received a PEG. Of these, 131 (56.7 %) were treated with pull-through-PEGs and 100 (43.3 %) with the push-PEG method. Overall, in 61 of 231 (26.4 %) patients, a complication was documented and 37 of 61 (60.6 %) were assigned to Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Only 5 of 231 patients (2.2 %) required a re-intervention or surgical treatment under general anesthesia. The overall complication rate was significantly increased by the type of push-PEG tube used (push 33/100 = 33 vs. pull 28/131 = 21.4 %, p = 0.047). A dislocation of the tube was noticed in 5/131 (3.8 %) cases of pull-PEGs and 12/100 (12 %) cases of push PEGs (p = 0.018). An occlusion of the PEG also occurred significantly more frequent in connection with the push-PEG (10/100 = 10 vs. 1/131 = 0.8 %; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both PEG techniques are safe and well established. Push PEG showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications, dislocations, and occlusions. The decision which PEG tube should be used depends on individual conditions with preference of push-PEGs in patients with head, neck, and esophageal cancer.

摘要

背景

经皮内镜下胃造口术(PEG)可通过直接穿刺胃进行,即所谓的塞丁格技术(“推”法)或线拉法(“拉”法)。本研究的目的是比较两种应用方法的最终结果。

方法

回顾性分析并比较2009年至2012年在我科进行的所有经皮内镜下胃造口术(pull-through-PEG)和推法PEG应用的数据。数据收集包括患者的人口统计学资料、适应证、合并症、介入期间的化疗和/或放疗。并发症根据Clavien-Dindo分类进行分级,并分为早期和晚期并发症(PEG插入后10天之前和之后)。

结果

共有231例患者接受了PEG。其中,131例(56.7%)采用线拉法PEG治疗,100例(43.3%)采用推法PEG治疗。总体而言,231例患者中有61例(26.4%)记录有并发症,61例中有37例(60.6%)被归类为Clavien-Dindo 1级。231例患者中只有5例(2.2%)需要在全身麻醉下进行再次干预或手术治疗。使用的推法PEG管类型使总体并发症发生率显著增加(推法100例中有33例 = 33%,线拉法131例中有28例 = 21.4%,p = 0.047)。线拉法PEG的131例中有5例(3.8%)出现导管移位,推法PEG的100例中有12例(12%)出现导管移位(p = 0.018)。推法PEG相关的PEG堵塞也明显更频繁发生(100例中有10例 = 10%,131例中有1例 = 0.8%;p < 0.001)。

结论

两种PEG技术都是安全且成熟的。推法PEG的总体并发症、移位和堵塞发生率明显更高。应使用哪种PEG管取决于个体情况,对于头颈癌和食管癌患者,推法PEG更受青睐。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验