This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by DeLegge, M. Articles by Brady, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by DeLegge, M. Articles by Brady, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

External Bolster Placement After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Insertion: Is Looser Better?

Mark DeLegge, MD^*,, Rebecca DeLegge, MS and Courtney Brady, MD

From the ^* Division of Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Center, and Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

Correspondence: Mark DeLegge, MD, 3233 Cottonfield Drive, Mount Pleasant, SC 29466-8014. Electronic mail may be sent to deleggem{at}musc.edu.

Background: Abdominal and gastric wall inflammation, infection, and necrosis after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement is a topic of importance but of limited study. Healing of the abdominal wound after PEG placement is thought to be dependent on a number of factors, including the patient's nutrition status, comorbid disease status, and postprocedural PEG wound care. Another important factor that may influence wound healing is tissue tension and compression. This requires special attention to the correct placement of the external bolster of the PEG tube against the abdominal wall. Methods: We performed a study in mongrel dogs to determine the relevance of tissue compression on PEG-tube wound healing; 8 mongrel dogs each received 3 separate 24 Fr PEG tubes at 1 endoscopic setting. After PEG placement, the external bolster was placed at 0 cm, 1 cm, or 4 cm from the abdominal wall. Post-PEG care and enteral feedings were standardized. The dogs were killed at 3 weeks. Results: Partial migration of the PEG internal bolster into the gastric wall occurred in 1 of 8 of the PEG tubes with the external bolster at 0 cm. PEG-tube-tract tissue inflammation was worse in the dogs with the external bolster placed at 0 cm. Conclusions: The position of the external bolster in relation to the abdominal wall may be an important factor in the healing of a post–PEG-tube-placement tissue tract.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 30, No. 1, 16-20 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/014860710603000116


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. I. Furlano, M. Sidler, and H. Haack The Push-Pull T Technique: An Easy and Safe Procedure in Children With the Buried Bumper Syndrome Nutr Clin Pract, December 1, 2008; 23(6): 655 - 657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Wirth, J. Bauer, and C. Sieber Necrotizing Candida Infection After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Fatal and Rare Complication JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, May 1, 2008; 32(3): 285 - 287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]