ABSTRACT
When oral feeding cannot provide adequate nutritional support to children, enteral tube feeding becomes a necessity. The overall aim is to ultimately promote appropriate growth, improve the patient's quality of life and increase carer satisfaction. Nasogastric tube feeding is considered appropriate on a short-term basis. Alternatively, gastrostomy feeding offers a more convenient and safer feeding option especially as it does not require frequent replacements, and carries a lower risk of complications. Gastrostomy tube feeding should be considered when nasogastric tube feeding is required for more than 2-3 wk as per the ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition. Several techniques can be used to insert gastrostomies in children including endoscopic, image guided and surgical gastrostomy insertion whether open or laparoscopic. Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. The timing of gastrostomy insertion, device choice and method of insertion is dependent on the local expertise, patient requirements and family preference, and should be individualized with a multidisciplinary team approach. We aim to review gastrostomy insertion in children including indications, contraindications, history of gastrostomy, insertion techniques and complications.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Advancements in pediatric percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement (PEG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrostomy (LAG) technique, and laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (LAPEG) procedure have opened up new options for gastrostomy tube placement. LAPEG utilizes endoscopy and laparoscopy for gastrostomy insertion. This review compares the outcomes and complications of LAG and LAPEG techniques in children. Methods: All LAG and LAPEG gastrostomy tube placements in children from September 2010 to September 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographic, along with procedural and 1-year complication data, were collected. Results: In total, 92/181 of gastrostomies were LAG and 89/181 were LAPEG. The mean age, weight and patient characteristics were comparable. Conversion rate was 1% in both groups (p = 0.74), there was no peritoneal leak in either group, a minor serosal injury to the stomach was seen in 1 patient in LAG with no bowel injury in LAPEG cohort (p = 0.51), need for re-operation was 1 and 2% in LAG and LAPEG, respectively (p = 0.49), early tube dislodgement was in 8 (9%) patients in LAG and 7 (6%) in LAPEG (p = 0.53) and wound infection was 13/92 in LAG and 11/89 in LAPEG (p = 0.8). The median operative time for LAPEG was less than LAG (p < 0.001) by 11 min but the median length of hospital stay was not significantly different (p < 0.096). Conclusion: Both LAG and LAPEG techniques in children are safe with comparable complication rates and length of hospital stay, the addition of endoscopy to LAG allowed for shorter operative time in the LAPEG technique.
