Endoscopy 1995; 27(4): 313-316
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1005699
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG): Comparison of Push and Pull Methods and Evaluation of Antibiotic Prophylaxis

W. L. Akkersdijk1 , J. D. van Bergeijk2 , T. van Egmond1 , C. J. J. Mulder2 , G. P. van Berge Henegouwen3 , C. van der Werken1 , K. J. van Erpecum3
  • 1Department of Surgery, Utrecht University Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 2Department of Gastroenterology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands
  • 3Department of Gastroenterology, Utrecht University Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 March 2008 (online)


Background and Study Aims: Infection of the gastrostomy opening after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) catheter has been reported to occur quite often, especially when the pull method is used. We therefore compared complications occurring with the pull and push methods, and evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Patients and Methods: In a prospective study, 100 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to group A (pull plus antibiotic prophylaxis: amoxycillin-clavulanic acid 3 × l.2 g i.v. over 24 hours; 37 patients), group B (pull without antibiotic prophylaxis; 34 patients) and group C (push without antibiotic prophylaxis; 29 patients). The indications for PEG placement were dysphagia due to oropharyngeal tumors (56 %), neurological disease (32 %), or other (12 %). Patients were evaluated twice weekly for one month after the PEG placement.

Results: PEG catheters were successfully placed in 96 % of the patients. The total procedure-related complication rate was significantly lower in group A than in groups B and C (28 %, 58 %, and 70 %, respectively; p < 0.01). Major complications occurred in one patient in group A (seeding metastasis of a hypopharyngeal carcinoma in the gastrostomy tract), and in four patients in group B (three cases of peritonitis and one aspiration, resulting in two deaths), but in none of the group C patients. Group A patients experienced fewer peristomal infections than the other two groups (14 %, 30 %, and 41 %, respectively: p = 0.05). The risk of peristomal pain was similar (11 %, 15 %, and 11 %, respectively; p = n. s.). In three patients in group C, the PEG catheter had to be replaced by the pull method, due to repeated dislocation of the balloon catheter.

Conclusions: The complication rate with PEG placement is high with both the push and pull methods. The complication rate with the pull method is significantly reduced when antibiotic prophylaxis is used.