Hybrid percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (Hybrid PEG) improves patient safety by combining pull-through technique with gastropexy.

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-02-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2511-2096
Tobias Horst Kinzel, Viktoria Reich, Leonie Schuhmacher, Christian Bojarski, Andreas Adler, Wielfried Veltzke-Schlieker, Christian Jürgensen, Frank Tacke, Britta Siegmund, Juliane Buchkremer, Federica Branchi, Christoph Treese
{"title":"Hybrid percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (Hybrid PEG) improves patient safety by combining pull-through technique with gastropexy.","authors":"Tobias Horst Kinzel, Viktoria Reich, Leonie Schuhmacher, Christian Bojarski, Andreas Adler, Wielfried Veltzke-Schlieker, Christian Jürgensen, Frank Tacke, Britta Siegmund, Juliane Buchkremer, Federica Branchi, Christoph Treese","doi":"10.1055/a-2511-2096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>The direct puncture technique has been associated with a better safety profile compared with the classical pull-through technique for insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). In this study, the safety of the hybrid PEG technique, combining gastropexy with the pull-through technique, was analyzed in a large retrospective patient cohort.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Clinical data from patients undergoing PEG insertion in a high-volume center for endoscopy were included retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2021. Patient characteristics and complication rates were correlated in univariate and multivariate analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 351 patients undergoing PEG insertion with the hybrid PEG technique were compared with 145 procedures with the direct puncture technique and 1073 procedures with the pull-through technique. In the group where gastropexy was performed (hybrid PEG and direct puncture), we could not find any significant differences in frequency of major and minor complications. Comparing the pull-through technique with the gastropexy group, we detected a five-fold higher major complication rate and a doubled minor complication rate for the pull-through technique. Multivariate analysis confirmed the protective role of gastropexy, with an odds ratio of 0.166 (0.084-0.329; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for major complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hybrid PEG and direct puncture are equally safe PEG insertion techniques, with significantly better safety profiles than the pull-through technique. Despite the retrospective design of the study, these results suggest preferential use of hybrid PEG due to handling.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25112096"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11866035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2511-2096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: The direct puncture technique has been associated with a better safety profile compared with the classical pull-through technique for insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). In this study, the safety of the hybrid PEG technique, combining gastropexy with the pull-through technique, was analyzed in a large retrospective patient cohort.

Patients and methods: Clinical data from patients undergoing PEG insertion in a high-volume center for endoscopy were included retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2021. Patient characteristics and complication rates were correlated in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: Data from 351 patients undergoing PEG insertion with the hybrid PEG technique were compared with 145 procedures with the direct puncture technique and 1073 procedures with the pull-through technique. In the group where gastropexy was performed (hybrid PEG and direct puncture), we could not find any significant differences in frequency of major and minor complications. Comparing the pull-through technique with the gastropexy group, we detected a five-fold higher major complication rate and a doubled minor complication rate for the pull-through technique. Multivariate analysis confirmed the protective role of gastropexy, with an odds ratio of 0.166 (0.084-0.329; P < 0.001) for major complications.

Conclusions: Hybrid PEG and direct puncture are equally safe PEG insertion techniques, with significantly better safety profiles than the pull-through technique. Despite the retrospective design of the study, these results suggest preferential use of hybrid PEG due to handling.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of H-APC in Barrett's esophagus: Italian prospective multicenter study. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting vs percutaneous cholecystostomy for managing acute cholecystitis: Nationwide propensity score study. Hybrid percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (Hybrid PEG) improves patient safety by combining pull-through technique with gastropexy. Improvement in adenoma detection rate by artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: Multicenter quasi-randomized controlled trial. Pediatric cylindrical battery ingestion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1