TY - JOUR
T1 - Endoscopic button gastrostomy
T2 - Comparing a sutured endoscopic approach to the current techniques
AU - Gonzalez-Hernandez, Jessica
AU - Daoud, Yahya
AU - Fischer, Anne C.
AU - Barth, Bradley
AU - Piper, Hannah G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2016/1/1
Y1 - 2016/1/1
N2 - Purpose Button gastrostomy is the preferred feeding device in children and can be placed open or laparoscopically (LBG). Alternatively, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be placed initially and exchanged for a button. Endoscopic-assisted button gastrostomy (EBG) combines both techniques, using only one incision and suturing the stomach to the abdominal wall. The long-term outcomes and potential costs for EBG were compared to other techniques. Methods Children undergoing EBG, LBG, and PEG (2010-2013) were compared. Patient demographics, procedure duration/complications, and clinic and emergency room (ER) visits for an eight-week follow-up period were compared. Results Patient demographics were similar (32 patients/group). Mean procedure time (min) for EBG was 38 ± 9, compared to 58 ± 20 for LBG and 31 ± 10 for PEG (p < 0.0001). The most common complications were granulation tissue and infection with a trend toward fewer infections in EBG group. Average number of ER visits was similar, but PEG group had fewer clinic visits. 97% of PEG patients had subsequent visits for exchange to button gastrostomy. Conclusions EBG is safe and comparable to LBG and PEG in terms of complications. It has a shorter procedure time than LBG and does not require laparoscopy, device exchange, or subsequent fluoroscopic confirmation, potentially reducing costs.
AB - Purpose Button gastrostomy is the preferred feeding device in children and can be placed open or laparoscopically (LBG). Alternatively, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be placed initially and exchanged for a button. Endoscopic-assisted button gastrostomy (EBG) combines both techniques, using only one incision and suturing the stomach to the abdominal wall. The long-term outcomes and potential costs for EBG were compared to other techniques. Methods Children undergoing EBG, LBG, and PEG (2010-2013) were compared. Patient demographics, procedure duration/complications, and clinic and emergency room (ER) visits for an eight-week follow-up period were compared. Results Patient demographics were similar (32 patients/group). Mean procedure time (min) for EBG was 38 ± 9, compared to 58 ± 20 for LBG and 31 ± 10 for PEG (p < 0.0001). The most common complications were granulation tissue and infection with a trend toward fewer infections in EBG group. Average number of ER visits was similar, but PEG group had fewer clinic visits. 97% of PEG patients had subsequent visits for exchange to button gastrostomy. Conclusions EBG is safe and comparable to LBG and PEG in terms of complications. It has a shorter procedure time than LBG and does not require laparoscopy, device exchange, or subsequent fluoroscopic confirmation, potentially reducing costs.
KW - Button gastrostomy
KW - Laparoscopic gastrostomy
KW - Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952980658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952980658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.014
DO - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 26552896
AN - SCOPUS:84952980658
SN - 0022-3468
VL - 51
SP - 72
EP - 75
JO - Journal of Pediatric Surgery
JF - Journal of Pediatric Surgery
IS - 1
ER -