-

Öz

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the results and experiences of the patients who received percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Methods: A total of 113 patients who admitted to the Dicle University Medical Faculty , Department of Gastroenterology between January 2012 and December 2014 and in whom received PEG was performed. The patients were assessed in terms of indications, complications and results.Results: Among these patients, 70 (61.9%) were male and 40 (38.1%) were female. Though 8 (7%) patients had head, neck and esophageal cancer; 105 (93%) patients had primer or seconder neurological disorders. After the PEG, any serious complication was seen in patients. Wound infections were encountered in five patients (4.4%) and the rate of minor complications was found to be 9.7%. The risk of complications was higher in patients over sixty years and men (p values of 0.049 and 0.022).Conclusion: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, a simple and safe method of enteral nutrition with a low complication rate, should be the first choice when extended period enteral nutrition is required. There is increased risk of complications in elderly males

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, indication, complication

Perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi uygulama sonuçlarımız: 113 olgunun değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Giriş: Bu çalışmamızda perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi uygulanan hastalarda bulduğumuz sonuçları ve tecrübelerimizi sunmayı amaçladık.

Yöntemler: 01 Ocak 2012 – 31 Aralık 2014 tarihleri arasında Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Gastroenteroloji Kliniği’nce endoskopi ünitesi ve yoğun bakımlarda hasta yatağında perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi tüpü takılan 113 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Hasta kayıtları endikasyon, komplikasyon ve sonuçlar açısından değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: PEG uygulanan 113 hastanın 70’i (%61,9) erkek, 40’ı (%38,1) ise kadındı. Hastaların 8’inde (%7) baş, boyun ve özofagus tümörü tanısı varken 105’inin (%93) primer ya da sekonder nörolojik hastalığı mevcuttu. İşlem sonrası hiçbir hastamızda ciddi komplikasyon görülmedi. Yara yeri enfeksiyonu 5 hastada (%4,4) gelişmiş olup minör komplikasyon oranı %9,7 olarak saptandı. Komplikasyon gelişme riski altmış yaş üstünde ve erkek hastalarda daha yüksek saptandı (sırasıyla p değerleri 0.049 ve 0.022).

Sonuç: Basit, güvenli ve komplikasyon oranı düşük bir enteral beslenme yöntemi olan perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi, uzun süreli enteral beslenme için öncelikle başvurulması gereken beslenme yöntemidir. İleri yaş ve erkek cinsiyette komplikasyon riski artmıştır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi, endikasyon, komplikasyon

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Perkutan endoskopik gastrostomi, endikasyon, komplikasyon

Kaynakça

1. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Drover JW, et al. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2003;27:355-373.
2. Gauderer MWL, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Paediatr Surg 1980;15:872–875.
3. Role of PEG/PEJ in enteral feeding. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (No author listed). Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:699-701.
4. Kirby DF, Delegge MH, Fleming CR. American Gastroenterological
5. Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1995;108:1282-1301.
6. Çakır M, Tekin A, Küçükkartallar T, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 2012; 39:162-165.
7. Tokunaga T, Kubo T, Ryan S. Long-term outcome after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.Geriatr Gerontol Int 2008;8:19-23.
8. Bassett MR, Dobie RA. Patterns of nutritional deficiency in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983;91:119-125.

9. Baschnagel AM, Yadav S, Marina O, et al. Toxicities and costs of placing prophylactic and reactive percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with chemoradiotherapy. Head Neck 2014;36:1155-1161.
10. Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donelly MT, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous gastrostomy and nasogastric feding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ 1996;312:13-16.
11. Varnier A, Iona L, Dominutti MC, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic
12. gastrostomy: complications in the short and longterm follow – up and efficacy on nutritional status. Eura Medicophys 2006;42:23-26.
13. Jain NK, Larson DE, Schroeder KW, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis
14. for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a prospective, randomized double blind clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:824-828.
15. Löser C, Aschl G, Hébuterne X, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition-percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005;24:848-861.