Skip to content

The Effect of the Distance of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Feeding Tube From the Pylorus on Postoperative Outcomes

The Effect of the Distance of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Feeding Tube From the Pylorus on Postoperative Outcomes

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07658079
Enrollment
200
Registered
2026-06-18
Start date
2026-08-01
Completion date
2027-08-31
Last updated
2026-07-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Gastrostomy Tube Site Complication, Nutrition Disorders, Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy, Poor Oral Intake

Keywords

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG), Postoperative Outcomes, feeding tube position, pylorus distance, enteral nutrition, post-procedure complications

Brief summary

Nutrition is the intake of essential nutrients in sufficient quantities and at the appropriate times to maintain and improve health and enhance quality of life. Enteral nutrition is superior to parenteral nutrition and should be preferred. Patients should begin enteral nutrition as soon as possible to protect the gastrointestinal mucosa and maintain normal flora. In patients unable to take food orally, enteral nutrition is provided via a nasogastric/nasojejunal tube or gastrostomy tube. Gastrostomy is the first choice for patients with a functional gastrointestinal system, poor oral intake, and requiring long-term nutritional support. Feeding tubes can be placed percutaneously or surgically. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a minimally invasive procedure that does not increase morbidity or mortality compared to surgical gastrostomy, and is cheaper and more time-saving. It was first applied in 1980 as an alternative to surgical gastrostomy. Initially described, a line was drawn between the umblicus and the middle of the left lower costal margin, and a feeding tube was inserted under local anesthesia at the junction of the middle 2/3 and the outer 1/3, with feeding starting the next day. Vudayagiri et al. reported that the placement site is generally 2 cm medial to the costal margin and 2 cm below the xiphoid process. Different methods for placing a PEG tube into the stomach (pull technique, push technique, and Russell method) are described in the literature, with the most common being the "pull" technique. The 2005 ESPEN guidelines note that in the "pull" technique, gastroscopic visualization of the anterior gastric wall is performed, followed by determination of the puncture site at the distal corpus level. The exact placement of the PEG feeding tube, both on the skin and within the gastric lumen, is not fully understood. Its localization on the abdominal skin will be optimally determined by endoscopic transillumination. However, its level within the gastric lumen is predictable. In our study, we aimed to measure the distance of the feeding tube from the pylorus in patients undergoing PEG surgery, to investigate how this affects post-procedure outcomes, and to determine the optimal level within the gastric lumen. Additionally, the catheter placement on the skin will be recorded for each patient. The anatomical skin localization obtained by examining the data of all patients will be defined as the 'Triangle of Çaykara'.

Interventions

The exact placement of the PEG feeding tube, both on the skin and within the gastric lumen, is not fully understood. In this study, researchers aimed to measure the distance of the feeding tube from the pylorus in patients undergoing PEG surgery, investigate how this affects post-procedure outcomes, and determine the optimal level within the gastric lumen. Additionally, the catheter placement on the skin will be recorded for each patient. The anatomical skin localization obtained by analyzing data from all patients will be defined as the 'Çaykara Triangle'.

Sponsors

Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Over 18 years of age * No history of major abdominal surgery (appendectomy, hernia, etc.) * Patients who started feeding 24 hours after the PEG procedure * Patients not using prokinetic agents.

Exclusion criteria

* History of stomach, small intestine, large intestine surgery or any history of major abdominal surgery * Having undergone surgical gastrostomy * Expected gastroparesis (hemodynamic instability, inotropic support, electrolyte imbalance, etc.) * Intestinal motility disorder * Patients who started feeding early

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Surgery-related complicationsFrom the procedure through the first 2 weeksIncidence of procedure-related and early post-procedure complications

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Feeding toleranceDaily monitoring starting 24 hours after the procedure and continuing for the first 2 weeks.Intolerance to enteral nutrition is typically defined by gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting, excessive gastric residual volumes (typically \>500 mL over 6 hours), abdominal distension, diarrhea, or constipation. All these parameters will be recorded, but particular attention will be paid to measuring excessive volumes of gastric residue.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jul 9, 2026