Endoscopy 2023; 55(S 02): S137-S138
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1765336
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2023
ePoster

Risk Of Tumor Seeding In Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) In Aerodigestive Tumors; A Single Centre Experience

S. Bilal
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
S. Saeed
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
S. Amjad
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
N. Javed
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
Z. Jahangir
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
U. Salman
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
M. Z. Siddique
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
S. Mehmood
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
,
M. A. Yusuf
1   Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
› Institutsangaben
 

Aims The pull technique of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is considered to be risk factor for PEG site metastasis, which is associated with poor outcome. We are placing PEG tubes in aerodigestive cancers since 2008 via pull method. We aim to look for the incidence of PEG site metastasis in our population and to document nutritional benefits and 30 days mortality of PEG tube in aerodigestive cancers.

Methods This retrospective single centre study was performed at Shaukat Khanum Cancer Memorial and Research centre, Lahore, for the duration of 10 years (2009-2019). Total 1782 patient were ncluded.

Results Six out of all the included patients had PEG site metastasis, making it 0.36%. The average time of development of stromal metastasis was eight months after insertion of PEG tube. Which is less when compared with literature, 0.56% with pull method. The overall BMI and albumin levels were remained stable and the values were statistically significant as well. Two patients had 30 days mortality, which was non PEG related [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

Conclusions Pull technique is not a risk factor for peg site metastaisis and there must other route, like haemaological or lymphocytic spread. Prophylactic PEG tube is safe in oesophageal CA and is associated with maintaining the nutritional status.



Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. April 2023

© 2023. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • 1 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. "Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique". J. Pediatr. Surg 1980; 15 (06) 872-5
  • 2 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Tanaka N, Fujii H, Kajiyama M.. Prospective randomized trial comparing the direct method using a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device with the pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Endoscopy. 2008; 40 (09) 722-6
  • 3 Mezzomo TR, Fiori LS, de Oliveira Reis L, Schieferdecker ME.. Nutritional composition and cost of home-prepared enteral tube feeding. Clinical nutrition ESPEN 2021; 42: 393-9
  • 4 Siu J, Fuller K, Nadler A, Pugash R, Cohen L, Deutsch K, Enepekides D, Karam I, Husain Z, Chan K, Singh S.. Metastasis to gastrostomy sites from upper aerodigestive tract malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2020; 91 (05) 1005-14
  • 5 Metkus JS, Cognetti D, Curry J.. Percutaneous gastrostomy site metastasis from head and neck tumors: A single institution case series. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2017; 2 (06) 395-7
  • 6 Musumba CO, Hsu J, Ahlenstiel G, Tutticci NJ, Nanda KS, Van Der Poorten D, Lee EY, Kwan V.. Feasibility and safety of overtubes for PEG-tube placement in patients with head and neck cancer. Gastroenterology Research and Practice. 2015 2015.