The role of surgical gastrostomy in the age of endoscopic gastrostomy: a 13 years and 543 patients retrospective study

The Outcomes of Nutritional Support Techniques in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers

Gastrointestinal cancers represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A significant issue regarding the therapeutic management of these patients consists of metabolic disturbances and malnutrition. Nutritional deficiencies have a negative impact on both the death rates of these patients and the results of surgical or oncological treatments. Thus, current guidelines recommend the inclusion of a nutritional profile in the therapeutic management of patients with gastrointestinal cancers. The development of digestive endoscopy techniques has led to the possibility of ensuring the enteral nutrition of cancer patients without oral feeding through minimally invasive techniques and the avoidance of surgeries, which involve more risks. The enteral nutrition modalities consist of endoscopy-guided nasoenteric tube (ENET), percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal tube extension (PEG-J), direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy.

Gastroenterologist's Guide to Gastrostomies

Gastroenterologists are frequently consulted for evaluation feeding tube placement, or for management of complications in an existing feeding tube. Though a frequent topic of consultation for GI Fellows, there are few comprehensive resources for feeding tube placement and troubleshooting available. In this review, we discuss different types of feeding tubes, when each should be considered, and various methods and techniques for placement. Considerations for when one type, method, technique, or specialty may be preferred over the other will be discussed. Additionally, we discuss management of the many complications of indwelling feeding tubes. Our goal is to create a comprehensive review for gastroenterologists to cover clinically relevant questions related to feeding tube placement and management.

Nutritional Support of Cancer Patients without Oral Feeding: How to Select the Most Effective Technique?

BACKGROUND

Digestive tumours are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Many cancer patients cannot maintain oral feeding and develop malnutrition. The authors aim to: review the endoscopic, radiologic and surgical techniques for nutritional support in cancer patients; address the strategies for nutritional intervention according to the selected technique; and establish a decision-making algorithm to define the best approach in a specific tumour setting.

SUMMARY

This is a narrative non-systematic review based on an electronic search through the medical literature using PubMed and UpToDate. The impossibility of maintaining oral feeding is a major cause of malnutrition in head and neck (H&N) cancer, oesophageal tumours and malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Tube feeding, endoscopic stents and gastrojejunostomy are the three main nutritional options. Nasal tubes are indicated for short-term enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the gold standard when enteral nutrition is expected for more than 3-4 weeks, especially in H&N tumour and oesophageal cancer patients undergoing definite chemoradiotherapy. A gastropexy push system may be considered to avoid cancer seeding. Radiologic and surgical gastrostomy are alternatives when an endoscopic approach is not feasible. Postpyloric nutrition is indicated for patients intolerant to gastric feeding and may be achieved through nasoenteric tubes, PEG with jejunal extension, percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and surgical jejunostomy. Oesophageal and enteric stents are palliative techniques that allow oral feeding and improve quality of life. Surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy is recommended when enteric stents fail or prolonged survival is expected. Nutritional intervention is dependent on the technique chosen. Institutional protocols and decision algorithms should be developed on a multidisciplinary basis to optimize nutritional care.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists play a central role in the nutritional support of cancer patients performing endoscopic techniques that maintain oral or enteral feeding. The selection of the most effective technique must consider the cancer type, the oncologic therapeutic program, nutritional aims and expected patient survival.

Clinical Features and Advantages of a Novel Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Method

Background

To study the clinical characteristics of novel percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the hospital records of 173 patients undergoing various methods of gastrostomy (a novel PEG, traditional PEG, and surgical gastrostomy). Clinical characteristics were analyzed. For the novel PEG, the operation was as same as the traditional method for initial steps until the annular guide wire was inserted. The following steps were different: water was injected through an injection port to expand the capsule, then the water sac was confirmed to be close to the gastric wall under endoscope, and, finally, the incision was sutured and covered.

Results

Patient ages ranged from 42 to 93 years (60.8±9.2 years, 91 males and 82 females). Among all patients, there were 27 cases of brain trauma, 42 cases of cerebral infarction, 74 cases of esophageal or cardiac carcinoma, 21 cases of laryngocarcinoma, and 9 cases of Alzheimer disease. Clinical features were significantly better for novel PEG compared to traditional PEG: duration of operation (19.75±3.14 min vs. 37.86±5.33 min and 54.12±9.48 min, P<0.001), intraoperative blood loss (27.14±3.63 ml vs. 43.53±6.24 ml and 75.78±12.41 ml, P<0.001), postoperative pain score (1.12±0.19 pts vs. 3.85±0.44 pts and 6.22±1.06 pts; P<0.001), infection rate (1.35% vs. 3.77% and 2.17%, P<0.001), length of hospital stay (3.16±0.42 d vs. 5.68±0.78 d and 8.29±1.31 d, P<0.001), and time to free activity (2.24±0.26h vs. 3.74±0.48 h and 14.85±2.38 d, P<0.001). The incidence of complications such as wound infection (1.35% vs. 3.77% and 4.76%), vomiting (1.35% vs. 5.66% and 6.52%), and nausea (2.70% vs. 1.88% and 6.52%) in the novel PEG group was lower than in the other groups (P<0.0001). Improved outcomes were obtained without increased medical costs in the novel PEG group.

Conclusions

For patients with difficult postoperative oral nutrition, the novel PEG treatment resulted in overall better clinical outcomes than traditional PEG.

Long-Term Gastrocolocutaneous Fistula after Endoscopic Gastrostomy: How Concerned Should We Be?

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a safe technique for long-term enteral feeding. The most common PEG-associated adverse events are minor. Gastrocolocutaneous fistula (GCCF) results from misplacement of the PEG tube through the colon. The importance of this complication is not currently defined, and there is no clearly established therapeutic algorithm. The authors report a series of 3 cases of GCCF diagnosed and treated in a tertiary center.

Case 1

An 88-year-old man underwent PEG due to head and neck cancer. The procedure was uneventful, and the patient remained asymptomatic. After the first PEG tube substitution performed at 6 months, stool drainage through the stoma was observed. Computed tomography (CT) showed a GCCF. After tube removal, the fistula spontaneously closed, and the patient remained under nasogastric feeding until death.

Case 2

A 31-year-old man with hereditary spastic paraplegia was submitted to PEG without early complications. The patient remained asymptomatic, and 7 months later, replacement of the PEG tube was planned. Under endoscopic control, the primary tube was removed, but the balloon replacement tube, introduced through the skin, was not observed in the gastric lumen. CT displayed a GCCF that spontaneously closed after a few days. A combined laparoscopic and endoscopic approach was used to resect the fistula tracts and perform a new gastrostomy.

Case 3

A 45-year-old man with cerebral palsy was referred to PEG. Skin transillumination was only observed transiently, and the abdominal puncture was performed obliquely. The patient remained asymptomatic until the 7th month, when the primary PEG tube replacement was performed. The percutaneously placed substitution tube did not reach the stomach. GCCF was evident on CT. The fistula spontaneously closed, and the patient was referred to elective surgery for laparoscopic gastrostomy. GCCF is an uncommon complication of PEG. Its clinical course seems to be benign with patients remaining asymptomatic under ambulatory enteral feeding for long periods until PEG tube replacement. Spontaneous fistula closure is the rule in this setting. Laparoscopic gastrostomy should be considered when a new PEG is advised and cannot be safely performed due to colon interposition.