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

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to improve surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. The aim of the study was to assess whether the implementation of a perioperative enhanced recovery after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (ERaPEG) pathway based on ERAS principles was safe, satisfactory to parents and improved outcomes. METHODS: Following a quality improvement project, a multimodal ERaPEG pathway was introduced as standard practice within the department and children undergoing elective same-day admission percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) at a single UK tertiary center were prospectively enrolled. Exclusion criteria were patients undergoing other concurrent procedures and those who underwent a laparoscopic assisted/open procedure. Data included patient demographics, underlying diagnosis, indication, length of stay (LOS) and 30-day readmission. Parental experience and satisfaction were determined using a questionnaire including 5-point Likert scales. A retrospective cohort was used for comparison. Data were analyzed using Chi-Square test and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients met the inclusion criteria: 50 pre and 45 post the implementation of ERaPEG. Median age was 3 and 2 years, respectively. Neurodisability was the underlying diagnosis in most patients (84%-pre-ERaPEG; 76%-post-ERaPEG). Most common PEG indication was medication/nutritional supplementation (52%-pre-ERaPEG; 51%-post-ERaPEG). The LOS significantly decreased from a median of 51.5 h (pre-ERaPEG) to 32 h (post-ERaPEG) (p < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission rates were similar (6% vs 11%). Most parents felt that the educational material was easy to access and understand. Post-operatively the majority of parents (≥ 80%) were confident in managing the gastrostomy device, setting up/giving the feeds and also felt that the LOS was appropriate. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the implementation of an ERaPEG pathway significantly reduced LOS following PEG. In addition, the pathway was satisfactory to parents and offered the benefit of improved resource utilization.

Long-gap esophageal atresia: gastric transposition or esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate different surgical approaches to long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) is unclear. METHODS: A systematic literature review was done comparing gastric transposition versus esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis in infants with LGEA+/-TEF. The primary outcome was time to full oral feeds. Secondary outcomes were time to full enteric feeds, need for further surgery, growth, mortality, and postoperative adverse events. RESULTS: No comparative studies were found. However, the literature was re-interrogated for non-comparative studies. Four hundred thirty-eight articles were identified and screened, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. All were case series. Forty-three infants underwent gastric transposition, and 106 had esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis. One study on gastric transposition reported time to full oral feeds, and one study in each group reported growth. Time to full enteric feeds was reported in one study in each group. 30% of infants had further surgery following gastric transposition, including hiatus hernia repair (5/43, 12%) and esophageal dilation (7/43, 16%). Following esophageal lengthening, 62/106 (58%) had anti-reflux surgery, 58/106 (55%) esophageal dilatation and 11/106 (10%) esophageal stricture resection. Anastomotic complications occurred in 13/43 (30%), gastrointestinal in 16/43 (37%), respiratory in 17/43 (40%), and nerve injury in 2/43 (5%) of the gastric transposition group. In the esophageal lengthening group, anastomotic complications occurred in 68/106 (64%), gastrointestinal in 62/106 (58%), respiratory in 6/106 (6%), and none sustained nerve injury. Each group had one death due to a cause not directly related to the surgical procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the morbidity associated with both surgical procedures and the variety in reporting outcomes.