True incidence and clinical significance of pneumoperitoneum after PEG placement: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: PEG is a widely used method for providing nutritional support. Although pneumoperitoneum is a known finding after PEG placement, its true incidence is subject to debate. Small retrospective studies have found varied rates of free air after PEG placement. PATIENTS: There were a total of 65 patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the true incidence of pneumoperitoneum and its clinical significance. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Long Island Jewish Medical Center. INTERVENTIONS: We obtained upright and anterior-posterior chest radiographs of 65 patients within 3 hours after PEG placement. Type of PEG tube, gauge of the needle used, number of sticks, and indications were recorded. The presence of pneumoperitoneum on the initial chest film was considered to be a positive finding. After a positive result, a repeat chest film was obtained 72 hours later to determine whether there was progression or resolution of the free air. Patients enrolled in the study were also monitored clinically for evidence of peritonitis. MAIN OUTCOME: Of the 65 patients who underwent PEG placement, 13 developed a pneumoperitoneum on the initial chest radiograph; there was complete resolution of pneumoperitoneum at 72 hours in 10 of the 13 patients. In 3 patients, the free air persisted but was of no clinical significance. MEASUREMENTS: The free air was quantified by measuring the height of the air column under the diaphragm and was graded with a scoring system (0, no air; 1, small; 2, moderate; 3, large). RESULTS: Eleven patients who underwent PEG died during the hospitalization; none of the deaths were related to the PEG placement or pneumoperitoneum. The other 54 patients were discharged to a skilled nursing facility. No patients in the study had clinical evidence of peritonitis. There were no adverse events, ie, infection or bleeding, associated with the PEG placement in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that pneumoperitoneum after PEG placement is common and, in the absence of clinical symptoms, is of no clinical significance and does not warrant any further intervention.

Surgery for localized prostate cancer after renal transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of perineal radical prostatectomy (RP) in renal transplant recipients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised seven consecutive renal transplant patients who had a perineal RP between May 1991 and February 2004. All available clinicopathological data were reviewed. Results All seven patients successfully tolerated RP with no major complications. The mean (sd, range) age at surgery was 62.3 (2.5, 55-74) years and the mean interval from renal transplant to RP 86.5 (25.25, 24-192) months. There was no evidence of increased blood loss, operative duration, transfusion requirement, hospital stay or deterioration of graft function. The presence of an allograft did not alter the surgical approach or management of the patients after RP. The mean follow-up was 22 (2-130) months and all seven patients were followed. One patient had evidence of biochemical recurrence with no radiographic evidence of metastatic disease. Serum prostate-specific antigen was undetectable in the remaining patients. CONCLUSION: A perineal RP in renal transplant recipients for treating localized prostate cancer offers many advantages over other treatments.