Percutaneous Gastrostomies: Associated Complications in PUSH vs. PULL Techniques over 12 Years in a Referral Centre
Authors:
- Ana Piñar-GutiérrezAPAna Piñar-Gutiérrez
- Lucía González-GraciaLGLucía González-Gracia
- Rocío Vázquez GutiérrezRGRocío Vázquez Gutiérrez
- Silvia García-ReySGSilvia García-Rey
- Andrés Jiménez-SánchezAJAndrés Jiménez-Sánchez
- Irene González-NavarroIGIrene González-Navarro
- Dolores Tatay-DomínguezDTDolores Tatay-Domínguez
- Pilar Garrancho-DomínguezPGPilar Garrancho-Domínguez
- Pablo J. Remón-RuizPRPablo J. Remón-Ruiz
- Antonio J. Martínez-OrtegaAMAntonio J. Martínez-Ortega
- Pilar Serrano-AguayoPSPilar Serrano-Aguayo
- María Dolores Giménez-AndreuMGMaría Dolores Giménez-Andreu
Open Access
- 22 March 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 13 (7) , 1836
Abstract
Objectives: To compare complications associated with percutaneous gastrostomies performed using PUSH and PULL techniques, whether endoscopic (PEG) or radiological (PRG), in a tertiary-level hospital. Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Adult patients who underwent percutaneous PULL or PUSH gastrostomy using PEG or PRG techniques at the Virgen del Rocio University Hospital and subsequently followed up in the Nutrition Unit between 2009–2020 were included. X2 tests or Fisher’s test were used for the comparison of proportions when necessary. Univariate analysis was conducted to study risk factors for PRG-associated complications. Results: n = 423 (PULL = 181; PUSH = 242). The PULL technique was associated with a higher percentage of total complications (37.6% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.005), exudate (18.2% vs. 11.2%; p = 0.039), and irritation (3.3% vs. 0%; p = 0.006). In the total sample, there were 5 (1.1%) cases of peritonitis, 3 (0.7%) gastrocolic fistulas, and 1 (0.2%) death due to complications associated with gastrostomy. Gender, age, and different indications were not risk factors for a higher number of complications. The most common indications were neurological diseases (35.9%), head and neck cancer (29%), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (17.2%). Conclusions: The PULL technique was associated with more total complications than the PUSH technique, but both were shown to be safe techniques, as the majority of complications were minor.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- To push or to pull? A clinical audit on the efficacy and safety of the pull and push percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in oncological patientsUnited European Gastroenterology Journal, 2023
- Outcomes of push and pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements in 854 patients: A single‐center studyJGH Open, 2021
- Complications of percutaneous endoscopic and radiologic gastrostomy tube insertion: a KASID (Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases) studySurgical Endoscopy, 2018
- Push versus pull gastrostomy in cancer patients: A single center retrospective analysis of complications and technical success ratesDiagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 2018
- New laparoscopic assisted percutaneous gastrostomy. Description and comparison with others gastrostomy typesClinical Nutrition ESPEN, 2016
- Comparison of 231 patients receiving either “pull-through” or “push” percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomySurgical Endoscopy, 2014
- Risk Factors for Complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic GastrostomyDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2013
- Comparison of fluoroscopy-guided Pull-type Percutaneous Radiological Gastrostomy (Pull-type-PRG) with conventional Percutaneous Radiological Gastrostomy (Push-type-PRG): clinical results in 253 patientsEuropean Radiology, 2011
- Consensus Statement; ESPEN guidelines on Artificial enteral nutrition - percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)Clinical Nutrition, 2005
- Complications of surgical and percutaneous nonendoscopic gastrostomy: Review of 233 patientsGastroenterology, 1988