» Articles » PMID: 25783383

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Gastrostomy Insertion Techniques in Children

Overview
Journal J Pediatr Surg
Date 2015 Mar 19
PMID 25783383
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Gastrostomy tubes are inserted via multiple techniques to provide a route for enteral feeding in the pediatric population. This review compares the rate of major complications and resource utilization associated with the various insertion techniques.

Methods: Major electronic databases were queried for comparative studies of two or more insertion techniques, including open, laparoscopic, percutaneous endoscopic, or fluoroscopic guided. Major complications were defined as reoperation within 1 year or death. Screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were conducted independently by two reviewers. Forest and funnel plots were generated for outcomes using Revman 5.1, with p<0.05 considered significant.

Results: Twenty-two studies with a total of 5438 patients met inclusion criteria. No differences in major complications were noted in studies comparing open versus laparoscopic approaches or open versus PEG. Studies comparing laparoscopic gastrostomy and PEG revealed a significantly increased risk in major complications with PEG (n=10 studies, OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.51, p<0.0001). The number needed to treat to reduce one major complication by abandoning PEG is 45.

Conclusions: PEG is associated with an increased risk of major complications when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Advantages in operative time appear outweighed by the increased safety profile of laparoscopic gastrostomy insertion.

Citing Articles

An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for laparoscopic gastrostomy insertion facilitates 23-h discharge.

Patel H, Martin B, Pisavadia B, Soccorso G, Jester I, Pachl M Pediatr Surg Int. 2025; 41(1):83.

PMID: 39961858 DOI: 10.1007/s00383-025-05984-1.


Pediatric laparoscopic versus percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement: a single-center review.

Rumbika S, Dantes G, Buchanan M, Byrnes J, Harriott A, He Z Pediatr Surg Int. 2024; 41(1):25.

PMID: 39663217 DOI: 10.1007/s00383-024-05888-6.


Evaluating the use of laparoscopic gastrostomy in children with congenital heart disease in Colombia: a retrospective analysis.

Chaparro-Zaraza D, Pinilla-Orejarena A, Otoya-Castrillon J, Chacon-Valenzuela D, Quintero-Olarte J, Cifuentes-Rincon A Front Pediatr. 2024; 12:1405793.

PMID: 38938503 PMC: 11208668. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2024.1405793.


The principles of enhanced recovery after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (ERaPEG): a UK tertiary center experience.

Nasher O, Thornber J, Dean J, Goldthorpe J, Rajfeld L, Smith L Pediatr Surg Int. 2024; 40(1):123.

PMID: 38704451 DOI: 10.1007/s00383-024-05693-1.


Time trends and outcomes of gastrostomy placement in a Swedish national cohort over two decades.

Skogar M, Sundbom M World J Gastroenterol. 2024; 30(10):1358-1367.

PMID: 38596497 PMC: 11000080. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i10.1358.