Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Publish Ahead of Print

DOI : 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003207

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children: an update to the ESPGHAN position

paper

Matjaž Homana *, Bruno Hauserb, Claudio Romanoc, Christos Tzivinikosd, Filippo Torronie,
Frédéric Gottrandf, Iva Hojsakg, Luigi Dall’Oglioe, Mike Thomsonh, Patrick Bontemsi, Priya
Narulah, Raoul Furlanoj, Salvatore Olivak, Jorge Amil-Diasl *

a
Faculty of Medicine, University Children's Hospital, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia

b
KidZ Health Castle UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

c
Department of Human Pathology in Adulthood and Childhood “G. Barresi”- University of
Messina, Italy

d
Al Jalila Children‘s Specialty Hospital , Dubai , UAE

e
Digestive Endoscopy and Surgery Unit, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital IRCCS, Rome.
Italy

f
Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, Infinite U1286, Lille, F-59000, France

g
Children's Hospital Zagreb, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb Croatia,
University J.J. Strossmayer, School of Medicine, Osijek, Croatia

h
Sheffield Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

i
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Universitaire des Enfants Reine Fabiola, Belgium

j
University Children’s Hospital Basel, Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition,
University of Basel, Switzerland

k
Maternal and Child Health Department, Sapienza, University of Rome, Italy

l
Centro Hospitalar S. João, Porto, Portugal

* Contributed equally

Funding sources

No funding sources were needed for the development of this position paper.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Background: The ESPGHAN position paper from 2015 on percutaneous endoscopic

gastrostomy (PEG) required updating in the light of recent clinical knowledge and data
published in medical journals since 2014.

Methods: A systematic review of medical literature from 2014 to 2020 was carried out.
Consensus on the content of the manuscript, including recommendations, was achieved by
the authors through electronic and virtual means. The expert opinion of the authors is also
expressed in the manuscript when there was a lack of good scientific evidence regarding
PEGs in children in the literature.

Results: The authors recommend that the indication for a PEG be individualized, and that the
decision for PEG insertion is arrived at by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) having considered
all appropriate circumstances. Well timed enteral nutrition is optimal to treat faltering
growth to avoid complications of malnutrition and body composition. Timing, device choice
and method of insertion is dependent on the local expertise and after due consideration with
the MDT and family. Major complications such as inadvertent bowel perforation should be
avoided by attention to good technique and by ensuring the appropriate experience of the
operating team. Feeding can be initiated as early as 3 hours after tube placement in a stable
child with iso-osmolar feeds of standard polymeric formula. Low- profile devices can be
inserted initially using the single stage procedure or after 2-3 months by replacing a standard
peg tube, in those requiring longer term feeding. Having had a period of non-use and
reliance upon oral intake for growth and weight gain – typically 8-12 weeks – a PEG may
then safely be removed after due consultation. In the event of non-closure of the fistula the
most successful method for closing it, to date, has been a surgical procedure, but the Over-
The-Scope-Clip (OTSC®) has recently been used with considerable success in this scenario.

Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory for the best possible treatment of

children with PEGs. Morbidity and mortality are minimized through team decisions on
indications for insertion, adequate planning and preparation before the procedure, subsequent
monitoring of patients, timing of change to low-profile devices, management of any
complications, and optimal timing of removal of the PEG.

Keywords: gastrostomy, children, complications, feeding tube, enteral feeding, nutrition,

PEG, balloon device

Abbreviations:

ESPGHAN: European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition

GB: skin-level gastrostomy button

LAPEJ: laparoscopic assisted endoscopic jejunostomy

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

MDT: Multidisciplinary team

NGT: nasogastric tube

NJT: naso-jejunal tube

PEG: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

PEG-J: percutaneous endoscopic gastro-jejunostomy

PEJ: percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube

GERD: gastroesophageal reflux disease

Synopsis of all recommendations is presented in Table 1.

What is known

 Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an interventional procedure that has

become one of the most commonly performed in children.
 PEG insertion is a safe, quick and effective method which allows non-oral, enteral
supportive nutrition in children who require it in the medium or long term.
 Despite the safety of the gastrostomy procedure, early or late complications can
occur.

What is new

 Feeding can be started 3 hours after gastrostomy tube placement in a stable child.
 Percutaneous laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic jejunostomy insertion is becoming
more widespread.
 Single-stage PEG is becoming more popular with paediatric gastroenterologists.
 Closure of PEG fistulae may now occur with the OTSC placed by endoscopy.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The aim of this European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and
Nutrition (ESPGHAN) position paper on management of percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG) is to update all relevant information regarding gastrostomies in paediatric
patients published since 2014 (1). Furthermore, new sections were added, such as quality of
life in children with enteral tubes.

PEG tube insertion, mainly to deliver nutritional support to children that are unable to
maintain adequate nutrition orally, has become a very common practice. A PEG may also
allow delivery of medications and allow venting of the stomach when necessary. If feeding
through a nasogastric tube (NGT) or naso-jejunal tube (NJT) for a duration of more than 3-6
weeks is necessary, PEG or PEG-J should be considered (2, 3). It is the opinion of the authors
that the number of absolute and relative contraindications for PEG insertion has decreased.
At the same time, the number of indications for inserting a feeding tube has increased. Rates
of PEG tube placement have risen, especially in the age group over 75 and in children.
Children’s average age at PEG tube insertion has decreased which confirms the trend over
the last years (4).

The use of feeding tubes for enteral nutrition has permitted longer survival and
transition to out-of-hospital care for higher numbers of children over the past decades, with
improved quality of life not only for children but also for parents, including better weight and
height gain of patients (5).

In line with the official ESPGHAN policy of periodic review of Societal papers, the
ESPGHAN Endoscopy Special Interest Group (SIG) decided that it was necessary to update
the position paper for PEG-J in paediatric patients.

Methods

Scope and purpose

The ESPGHAN position paper was developed for management of gastrostomy tubes
in children and adolescents in 2014 and was published in 2015 (1). Based on recent
accumulated publications and experience, the ESPGHAN Endoscopy SIG agreed to review
the current literature to provide an updated position regarding all aspects of PEG use and
placement in children.

Literature review

A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE,
Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases between October 1st, 2014 and September 1st, 2020
using the following MESH terms: (("Adolescent"[Mesh] OR "Child"[Mesh] OR
"Infant"[Mesh] OR "Paediatrics"[Mesh]) AND ("Gastrostomy"[Mesh] OR
"Jejunostomy"[Mesh]) OR "PEG"[Mesh] OR "PEGJ"[Mesh] OR "Stomach feeding

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

tube"[Mesh]) OR "Endoscopic gastrostomy"[Mesh] OR "Endoscopic jejunostomy"[Mesh])).
Non-English literature was excluded.

Review, consensus process, manuscript

The consensus group consisted of an international group of experts: paediatric

gastroenterologists and a paediatric surgeon, all members of the ESPGHAN Endoscopy SIG.
Each member of the consensus group provided disclosure of potential conflict of interest
using the Society’s conflict of interest web-based platform. A number of questions were
posed and then assigned to one member of the group for analysis based on available literature
and having written each section and proposed evidence-based Statements and
Recommendations, these were then circulated to the consensus group for revision using the
Delphi method until a unanimous consensus was obtained on each.

Funding sources

No funding sources were needed for the development of this position paper.

Enteral tube feeding

Enteral tube feeding is defined as enteral nutrition administered via a trans-nasal tube or
percutaneous stoma into the stomach or small intestine. Enteral tube feeding enables
exclusive or supplemental enteral nutritional support in children who are not able to sustain
their own growth, nutrition and hydration status or receive drug intake by mouth (6). Tubes
can be inserted via the nose i.e. naso-gastric (NG) or naso-jejunal (NJ) or via a stoma created
percutaneously with endoscopic assistance i.e. PEG; PEG with a jejunal extension (PEG-J);
or directly into the jejunum (laparoscopically assisted percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy
(PEJ or LAPEJ)). Finally, the tube may also be placed surgically i.e. surgical gastrostomy or
jejunostomy. (7-13) . Main indications that may require temporary or permanent enteral
feeding are presented in Table 2.

Indications for PEG

The most frequent indication for PEG insertion is neurological impairment, adequate timing
being proposed in the corresponding ESPGHAN guideline (14). In this condition, oral intake
may be unsafe (swallowing disorders) and/or nutritionally inadequate with oral intake being
insufficient or taking too much time. Neuromuscular conditions such as Duchenne’s
muscular dystrophy are another group whose oral intake is either insufficient, or unsafe with
respect to aspiration, that may benefit from non-oral nutritional support. Medical conditions
in which the oral intake is insufficient to support higher than normal nutritional requirements
may include cystic fibrosis or inflammatory bowel disease, in which an increased resting and
total energy expenditure are present (15) and other indications include: cardiomyopathy
with dyspnoea/tachypnoea precluding adequate oral intake (16, 17); renal failure (aversion
and vomiting due to uraemia (18)); cancer (19); metabolic diseases (special requirements or
nocturnal feeding); short bowel syndrome; severe food aversion/eating disorders (20), oral

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

malformations (21, 22); and in rare occasions gastrostomy can be used for decompression of
the stomach.

Recommendations:

Gastrostomy is recommended to support enteral nutrition in order to avoid malnutrition in

chronic severe diseases.

A PEG is indicated in situations of unsafe swallow.

A PEG is indicated when non-oral nutritional support is anticipated to be required for a

period of longer than 3-6 weeks or when trans-nasal tube feeding is unsafe.

Contraindications for PEG

Relative Contraindications

There are different possible contraindications to the PEG placement which should be
carefully considered and managed by endoscopists and/or surgeons. Table 3 reports the
contraindications (relative and absolute), related risks, and possible solutions reported in the
literature.

The risk of blind endoscopic insertion should be evaluated case-by case (23, 24).

Ideally, all medical conditions that present potential contraindications should be dealt with
prior to PEG insertion.

Anatomical or surgical conditions that can affect the position of intra-abdominal organs may
be identified by radiology or endoscopy to evaluate the feasibility of an endoscopic approach.
In these instances, a laparoscopically assisted approach may be needed, thus a close
collaboration among endoscopists and surgeons increases the success rate of PEG insertion
(25). Ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) shunts may be considered by some as a relative
contraindication requiring surgical visualisation to place the PEG. Significant scoliosis may
prevent adequate positioning of a PEG with the stomach positioned high up under the left
costal margin.

Patient Preparation prior to PEG placement

Initial assessment and counselling

A detailed clinical history and complete physical examination will enable the paediatric
gastroenterologist to ensure that gastrostomy insertion is appropriately indicated and identify
any possible contraindications or need for any further investigations prior to placement. For
example, whilst a routine contrast study is unnecessary, children with congenital
gastrointestinal anomalies may benefit from an upper gastrointestinal contrast study (26).

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

A multidisciplinary approach to decision making is important and involves assessment and
input by a dietitian, nutrition or gastrostomy specialist nurse, a speech and language therapist
and psychologist or play therapist, as required.

Involvement of the multidisciplinary professionals in a timely manner, allows consideration

and management of all relevant issues in a way that deals with all aspects of each patient.

Pre-placement counselling enables the team to support children and their parents in the
decision-making process with education, explore the expectations and reality of caring for a
child with a gastrostomy and discuss the potential risks, benefits and tube maintenance issues.
This can be further supported by providing the families with procedure specific information
leaflets and videos. Age-appropriate information leaflets and videos (e.g.
https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/g/g-tube-care) are beneficial in involving children
and young people in the decision-making process. There also needs to be consideration of
availability of language specific information.

Consent should specifically include risks such as infection, bleeding, other viscous
perforation such as colonic transfixation by the trochar, failure of the procedure with other
procedures which may be needed, including laparoscopy/laparotomy.

Gastro Oesophageal Reflux Disease

Asymptomatic children do not require investigation for gastro oesophageal reflux disease
prior to PEG placement (1).

Routine anti-reflux surgery at the time of gastrostomy placement is not recommended (27),
not even in patients with neurological impairment(28). Significant pre-existing reflux or
reflux in the presence of an unsafe swallow, chronic respiratory disease or progressive
neurological deterioration should prompt endoscopy and pH or pH/impedance on or off anti-
reflux medication in order for consideration of an anti-reflux procedure along with the PEG
placement (1).

A PEG-J is an alternative to fundoplication and gastrostomy for children with neurological

impairment and gastro-oesophageal reflux that failed medical management, or in
gastroparesis or gastric outlet obstruction and lastly where there is functional or anatomical
obstruction of the duodenum e.g. superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome (29).

Antibiotic prophylaxis

Lack of pre-operative antibiotics were noted to be an independent predictive factor for major
complications in children having a surgically placed gastrostomy device (30). A Cochrane
review published in 2013 in adults concluded that systemic prophylactic antibiotics during
gastrostomy tube placement does reduce peristomal infection (31).

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

A number of studies have indicated that this is good practice (32, 33). A recent randomised
placebo-controlled trial, by Alessandri et al., of a single dose of iv co-amoxiclav showed a
clear reduction in the rate of PEG-related infection from 21% in the placebo group to 5% in
the treatment arm (34). Therefore, it remains advisable to use prophylactic antibiotics for
PEG insertion.

Statements:

An MDT should be involved in the decision to place, and the preparation of a child and
family for PEG insertion.

Routine concomitant fundoplication in the absence of significant GERD is not usually

necessary.

Recommendation:

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent PEG site infection is recommended.

PEG techniques

Gastrostomy placement is one of the most common procedures performed in children (35).
Until 1980 the procedure was purely surgical, then Gauderer, a paediatric surgeon, and
Ponsky, an adult surgeon, established a new and effective endoscopic method of gastrostomy
placement in children and adults (36). PEG placement should be carried out in an appropriate
setting such as an endoscopy suite or operating theatre by appropriately trained staff (1)
under general anaesthesia and usually takes approximately 15-20 minutes.

In conditions such as severe scoliosis, prior to PEG placement, radiological imaging to

optimize the location of the tract for feeding tube insertion may be considered.

A detailed description of the technique of placement is out of the scope of this Guideline as it
has been described in detail elsewhere and is an established procedure (37, 38).

Push One-Step PEG

One-step gastrostomy insertion is an increasingly used technique.

A gastropexy is performed under endoscopic control and the anterior gastric wall is
juxtaposed to the abdominal wall with 3 fasteners which under tension from an assistant
(these are anchored with special clips flush with the skin after PEG balloon placement and
usually are extruded after 6 weeks or once the tract is matured). The puncture site is
identified at the centre of the gastropexy and the trocar is inserted under direct vision by the
endoscopist into the gastric lumen. A J-shaped guidewire is then passed through the trocar
over which is passed a multi-section dilator which has an increasing diameter as inserted, the

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

feeding tube is then passed through the dilator as it is peeled away into the stomach and, the
balloon is inflated (39).

This technique offers an advantage over a traditionally placed PEG tube because it avoids a
second general anaesthetic for removal of the tube and replacement with a low-level device,
especially for neurological patients (40) and allows primary insertion of a balloon/PEG. This
means to avoid another hospital admission and anaesthesia. In settings where these facilities
are expensive, the higher initial cost of the one-step button may turn out to be cost-effective
(41). The one-step device is also preferable in patients with a higher anaesthetic risk,
previous cardiac or oesophageal surgeries as the passage of the large bumper down the
oesophagus is avoided.

PEG-J technique:

This technique is performed after a previous gastrostomy and sufficient time is allowed for
gastric adhesion to the abdominal wall. It is required that the initial gastrostomy allows a
minimum diameter of a 10-12F tube. The procedure is done using a neonatal scope - for this
technique, sedation is not necessary. The endoscope is introduced into the gastrostomy site
after removal of the gastrostomy device and advanced to the jejunum.

The guidewire is inserted through the operating channel of the endoscope that is then
removed, leaving the guidewire in place. The gastro-jejunal tube is then slid over the
guidewire and placed in the distal part of duodenum/jejunum. The gastric balloon is then
inflated. Radiological position confirmation is not necessary but can occur.

Another way of insertion is via endoscopy, when the PEG is removed and the PEG-J tube is
then inserted and guided into the jejunum under direct vision using a standard endoscope.
The small cotton loop at the tip can be grasped by a haemostatic endo-clip and this can then
be deployed to anchor the tip of the tube in the jejunum.

Statement:

Where it is desirable to avoid a second general anaesthetic then a single stage PEG may be
inserted as long as the requisite experience is available to do so.

Recommendation:

The type of device must be chosen according to the experience of the team and expectations
of the family.

The standard pull-through technique is generally recommended with a change to a low-

profile balloon/button device once the tract has formed.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

PEG care

Children should be admitted overnight to ensure adequate pain control and safe initiation of
feeds. In the immediate post-operative period, the patient's general condition is monitored
and the abdomen is examined for signs of peritonitis or significant pneumoperitoneum.
Despite the recommended use of a long-acting local anaesthetic such as bupivacaine during
the procedure, most children require some analgesia during the first 2 days. For 1 week, daily
aseptic cleaning of the site is recommended, and a sterile dressing can be applied.
Subsequently, simple washing is sufficient, and a dry dressing may be placed over the outer
collar if a tube was used. Occlusive dressings are not recommended as they increase the risk
of local infection (1). The most important defence for preventing skin breakdown is
performing proper hygiene at the gastrostomy tube site and protecting the skin from moisture,
friction, and trauma (42). In some centres it is routine to slightly loosen the anchoring device
the next day to account for site tissue swelling.

It is quite normal to experience some clear or coloured discharge from around the site for the
first 7 to 10 days post-placement while the site is healing. A glycerine hydrogel-based wound
dressing has been shown to prevent peristomal infections after PEG in adult patients with
cancer (43).This was not confirmed by a recent paediatric trial (44). The use of
antibiotic/steroid topical application can be helpful in the prevention of local
infection/inflammation.

In addition to the observation of the site for infection, a PEG requires daily care.

Baths can be given once the incision site has healed. This is normally a minimum of 48 hours
after the gastrostomy has been placed. In case of one step gastrostomy button technique the
patient is not allowed to bathe as long as the gastropexy bumpers are in place. Taking a
shower is allowed. Swimming is permitted but should not be encouraged for 2 weeks
following gastrostomy placement.

Silver or hydrocolloid dressings may be helpful despite variable result for the treatment of
excessive granulation tissue formation (45). Anti-microbial dressings may be needed in the
presence of minor, superficial infection.

Caregivers should be instructed not to pull on the tube and to avoid any persistent tension as,
for some devices more than others, this may lead to progressive migration of the bumper into
the tract, leading to “buried bumper syndrome” (see COMPLICATIONS). To prevent a
“buried bumper”, in the case of a PEG with a thin internal bolster, the tube should be
carefully pushed into the stomach by 1 to 2 cm and then rotated once a week from day 7 post-
insertion (46). This should not occur in those PEG tubes that have thicker internal bolsters
where buried bumper is not seen.

After gastrostomy placement family and caregivers should be trained to confidently be able
to manage their child's tube/button. One key point is to inform and train the caregiver in case

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

of accidental tube/button removal. This is only really relevant to buttons/balloons and not to
PEG tubes. This is an emergency because the gastro-cutaneous fistula can spontaneously
close within 6 hours. Placing a new tube or button to keep the gastro-cutaneous fistula open is
therefore needed. In most cases families and caregivers are provided with a replacement
tube/button (or measuring device) for reinsertion to maintain patency of the track in case of
accidental removal. Empowering staff nurses with knowledge and the necessary resources
and tools to confidently educate parents, along with a standardized process, may improve
overall outcomes (47). In case parents do not have a replacement tube, they should go to the
nearest health facility. The same tube (if still available) or a Foley catheter may be gently
inserted, and the tube taped to the skin in order to keep patency of the tract until specialised
care is available and a proper replacement can be performed.

Recommendation:

Family and caregivers should be trained how to use and manage the inserted device before
discharge from hospital.

Complications

These are detailed in Tables 4 and 5. The insertion of a PEG tube is a safe procedure.
However, complications are possible. They can be classified by severity (minor vs. major) or
time of occurrence (gastroscopy- or procedure-related, or early or late post-procedural) (48).
The early complications include endoscopy-related bleeding, internal organ injury,
pneumoperitoneum, cellulitis, and minor wound infections (49). Bleeding is a rare
complication of PEG placement and can originate in the gastrostomy tract/abdominal wall or
from injury of a large vessel (e.g. gastric artery, splenic or mesenteric veins) (50). Clinical
manifestations can be oozing of blood around the gastrostomy, haematemesis, melena or
signs of unexplained cardiovascular compromise. The minor bleeding in the puncture site
usually ceases spontaneously or after pressure applied to the abdominal wound (51). A CT
scan with water-soluble contrast in a patient with haemodynamic instability after the
procedure can exclude gastrointestinal complications (52). Internal intra-abdominal organ
injury, most likely colon and small bowel, rarely liver and spleen, may occur during the
placement of the gastrostomy tube. Pneumoperitoneum may occur few hours after the
procedure, and it can be considered a normal finding without consequences rather than a
complication (53). The presence of a pneumoperitoneum with no clinical symptoms should
not preclude feeding. When the free air persists 72 hours after PEG insertion, associated with
clinical symptoms such as abdominal distension, a potential bowel injury should be
considered (54). Redness, swelling, bleeding, and cellulitis can be classified as early
complications. Identification of early complications after the insertion of feeding tubes in
paediatric patients is important and post-operative care is essential to identify and treat these
conditions.

Apart from early and intra-procedural complications there are also several late complications
related to PEG placement (Table 4), and categorisation into minor and major can also be

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

helpful (Table 5). The Clavien-Dindo classification is a well-established method for assessing
complications, but disagreement regarding the classification of certain complications
represents an inherent weakness when analysing the data. The most recent literature review in
2018, on PEG-related complications, which included 18 articles from 1994 to 2017, in total
4631 patients, 1518 (32.8%) had minor complications (51). The most common minor
complications were superficial: granulation tissue (n = 478, 10.3%); local infection (n = 384,
8.3%); external leakage (n= 279, 6%); and skin erosion or erythema (n = 188, 4.1%).
Unplanned tube removal after post-operative period occurred in 65 cases and tube migration
and obstruction developed in 2%. Major complications developed in 464 (10%) patients, of
which almost 50% were related to infections, gastrocolic fistulas in 21 patients (0.45%),
oesophagus and bowel perforations in 13 patients (0.3%) and buried bumper syndrome in
1%.

Very rare complications include development of necrotizing fasciitis or haemo-peritonitis. As

highlighted in the recent ESPGHAN Guidelines for the Evaluation and Treatment of
Gastrointestinal and Nutritional Complications in Children With Neurological Impairment,
these patients may go through a period of worsened reflux symptoms after PEG insertion,
that may respond to slower advancement of enteral nutrition or necessitate a brief period of
change to continuous feeding schedule or even sustain and require anti-reflux surgery in due
course (14). PEG may promote increased number of non-acid reflux episodes although this is
rarely clinically relevant (55).

Patients with PEG may develop metabolic ‘dumping syndrome’ characterized by post-
prandial tachycardia, diaphoresis, lethargy, refusal to eat, gas bloat, and watery diarrhoea in
association with bolus feeds, usually if the vagus nerve is compromised during simultaneous
fundoplication and not due to the PEG procedure itself (56).

McSweeney et al. found that patients with neurologic disorders had less major complications,
because they are usually hospitalized and are under increased supervision (57), whereas
Fortunato et al found that the same patient cohort had elevated risk for wound infection (58).

However, several published articles agree that patients with ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) shunt
have higher risk during PEG insertion (51, 59, 60) and laparoscopic-assisted PEG could be
considered. In oncological and bone marrow-transplanted children, neutropenia was
associated with higher site infection (61). As per recent review by Balogh et al
hepatomegaly, coagulopathy, oesophageal stenosis and peritoneal dialysis were described as
possible risk factors (50). However, age under 1 year, neurological compromise, severe
scoliosis, constipation and upper abdominal surgery were not related to complication rate
(51) although thoraco-abdominal deformity may be associated with higher risk of leakage
(62). Laparoscopic-assisted PEG is recommended in high-risk patients.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

Recommendations:

If pneumoperitoneum persists longer than 3 days post-procedure, a bowel injury should be

excluded.

Extra care should be taken in patients with severe scoliosis.

PEG feeding techniques including types of food

Adult data indicate that very early feeding (even one hour) after the PEG placement is safe
(63). Data in children are scarce. The last ESPGHAN recommendation stated that introducing
feeds at 4 h post-PEG placement in children is safe (1). That recommendation was based on a
prospective randomized controlled study involving 69 children, which showed that feeding at
4 h vs 12 h post-PEG procedure was safe, well tolerated and led to a shortened hospitalization
stay (64). Two other prospective randomized trials in children compared early (3h) vs late 6h
(65) or 8h (66) feeding after PEG placement. Both studies concluded that feeding could start
as soon as 3 hours after the procedure with no increase in complication rate. All 3 paediatric
randomized controlled trials evaluated introduction of early feeds after pull PEG placement
technique. These 3 studies were recently recognized in a meta-analysis confirming that early
feeding after PEG placement may be a safe alternative to delayed feeding, although quality of
evidence was low (65). Therefore, based on available data, feeding can be initiated as early as
3 hours post-procedure in stable children with no complications.

There is no evidence available that suggests routine use of a clear fluid test or dilute or
hypotonic feed after the procedure. In fact, it has been suggested that these measures delay
the time to full enteral intake and prolong hospital stay (1, 64-66).

There is no general recommendation on the type of the enteral feed used after the procedure.
It largely depends on numerous factors, among others age, energy requirements, degree of
supplementation (proportion of nutrition provided enterally), presence of feed intolerance,
allergy, severity of pre-existing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with possible risks of
aspiration (1). The great majority of children before PEG placement were enterally fed via
NGT. In those children the type of feed post-PEG insertion will depend on the food regimen
tolerated by NG tube enabling a more rapid increase in the amount of formula (1). Adult and
animal studies indicate that iso-osmolar formula causes less delay in gastric emptying
comparing to hyperosmolar feeds (67). Although data for neonates and children are scarce
and inconclusive, it is prudent to start with iso-osmolar feeds of standard polymeric formula
in children in whom enteral formula was not used before and who have no pre-existing cow's
milk allergy (7, 68). Regarding the mode of the delivery bolus feeding is more physiological
and should be a first choice. In case of severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or if bolus
feeding is not tolerated continuous feeding can be used as alternative (7). Regardless of the
mode of the delivery (bolus or continuous) excessive feeds may lead to abdominal discomfort
and distension or ‘‘dumping.’’ Therefore, volume of the feeds should be gradually increased

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

and, in some children, small boluses during the day could be combined with the overnight
continuous feeding via enteral pump (14).

Long-term feeding regimen requires dietetic surveillance and follow-up which is not the
remit of this paper.

Recommendations:

Feeding can be initiated as early as 3 hours post procedure in stable child with no
complications.

Iso-osmolar feeds of standard polymeric formula is the best type of food to start with after the
PEG insertion.

Replacement of initial gastrostomy device

In the majority of children, a standard PEG is inserted in the first instance to safely establish
a gastrostomy tract. Once a stoma tract is formed the feeding tube is changed to skin level
balloon or non-balloon gastrostomy button (GB) by endoscopy under general anaesthesia. In
general, endoscopic centres wait at least 6 weeks to perform the second procedure. However,
studies in healthy animals showed that stoma tract is completely matured in one week (69).
Maturation and stable gastropexy may be delayed in immunocompromised patients, children
with obesity, diabetes mellitus and on corticosteroid therapy. Studies in humans have not
been performed, but it seems probable that one month after a PEG procedure is sufficient to
schedule a child for the second procedure. The appropriate length of the device (available
between 0.8-10 cm, but usually between 0.8 to 4.5cm) is determined by a stoma measuring
device. The length of the GB depends on individual differences of the abdominal wall, body
weight and degree of scoliosis (70).

The GBs are of different diameter (FG 12-24). The primary tube can be sized from FG 9 to
FG 24. In infants, gastrostomy tubes of smaller diameter e.g. FG 9 are often placed. In such a
case the formed stoma channel may require dilatation to accommodate the wider GB (71).

Low-profile tubes should be recommended to the families/child for long term enteral
nutrition to improve the quality of life in children with feeding tubes. However, the
physician should give the parents/child the possibility of choice whether to perform
replacement or not. Necessity for a repeat GA may be a contraindication in some children,
hence the potential advantage of a single stage PEG in these circumstances. The primary
device can stay in place for one year or even more. In a German study 85% of parents
answered that the GB is advantageous over primary gastrostomy tube due to mobility, patient
comfort at physiotherapy, swimming or night-time sleep, and higher parent satisfaction (70).

According to the manufacturer instructions GB should be replaced every 3 months on an

outpatient basis, but in the majority, these are safe to replace less frequently. However, if the
device is in place for more than 6 months the probability of balloon rupture increases. The

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

average lifetime of the GB is 5 to 6 months (72). The durability of non-balloon buttons is
longer, and they can be replaced annually (73). Besides longer tube durability also smaller
internal bolster size, which can relieve partial gastric outlet obstruction, are possible
advantages of non-balloon low- profile devices (74). The disadvantages are pain/discomfort
during tube replacement, because of insufficient collapse of the internal retainer, and the need
for trained health workers to replace the non-balloon tube, or sedation of the patient.

Complications in children undergoing button replacement may occur but are very rare. In a
retrospective study performed in a paediatric emergency department tube displacement
occurred in 3 out of 237 children (75). Although the procedure is easy to perform sometimes
control contrast- enhanced imaging is necessary. The use of point-of-care ultrasound instead
of radiation contrast technique to confirm the proper position of the button was described
recently (76). Major complications such as fistula disruption or duodenal perforation are also
possible (24).

Recommendations:

Replacing the initial tube with a gastric balloon/button should be recommended to the
families/child who will need long term enteral nutrition to improve quality of life.

Gastric balloons should be replaced every six months, but non-balloon PEGs can be replaced
annually.

NJ tube, PEG-J, laparoscopic assisted endoscopic jejunostomy (LAPEJ)

Enteral nutrition via nasogastric tube or PEG intra-gastric administration may not be
indicated because of severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and/or delayed gastric
emptying and/or antro-duodenal dysmotility/duodenal obstruction including conditions such
as SMA syndrome.

In some of these circumstances, and mainly in the neurologically impaired children, post-
pyloric feeding can be crucial, thereby avoiding the need for parenteral nutrition. NJ feeding
is often employed for short to medium term and often if significant gastro-oesophageal reflux
disease and aspiration are issues - this may provide ‘proof-of-concept’ for longer term more
definitive small intestinal feeding. PEG with jejunal extension (PEG-J) may be entertained.
For delivery of long term post-pyloric feeding, a direct jejunostomy tube (PEJ) provides more
stable and secure jejunal access compared with a PEG-J extension with less reported
complications of blockage/displacement, with consequently a decrease in the need for
radiological/endoscopic replacement/intervention (77, 78).

An NJ tube may be placed radiologically or endoscopically. For endoscopic placement a

‘silk’ 6, 8 or 10 FG feeding tube is first placed into the stomach, then an endoscope is
introduced and the tip of the tube (or preferably the small cotton loop at the tip) is grasped
with biopsy or grasping forceps. A newer and more useful technique involves using a single-
use pre-loaded rotatable two-pronged haemostatic clip device and attaching the loop to the

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

device and drawing it back into the biopsy channel. The endoscope is then introduced into the
jejunum and the clip is attached to the luminal wall thus anchoring the NJ tube tip. If simple
forceps are used, then the NJ tube can be inadvertently pulled back by friction into the
stomach - unless the forceps are advanced at the same rate as the endoscope is withdrawn
back into the stomach in order to leave the tube tip in the jejunum - the forceps are then
opened and retrieved, and the tube may be re-grasped in the stomach as the endoscope is then
removed from the patient again preventing proximal tube displacement. This problem does
not occur if a haemostatic clip technique is employed. A similar technique can be employed
to place the jejunal portion of a PEG-J. A single stage PEG-J can be placed if there is no prior
PEG stoma through which to place the PEG-J (39, 79). A NJT may also be placed having
placed by endoscopic direct vision a guidewire into the jejunum and then blindly passing the
NJT over the guidewire - subsequent radiological position confirmation may be used.

Direct jejunostomy or a variation utilising a Roux-en-Y loop have been attempted previously
but were abandoned due to high complication rates. A newer combined
laparoscopic/endoscopic technique similar to PEG placement has gained favour. Once the
duodeno-jejunal flexure is identified the laparoscopist clamps the small bowel in the
proximal jejunum in order to prevent subsequent endoscopic small bowel insufflation
limiting the laparoscopic field of vision. A dual channel gastroscope or variable-stiffness
colonoscope is preferred due to greater stiffness and absence of gastric loop formation. CO2
can be used for endoscopic insufflation. The procedure then follows the same technique as a
standard PEG, leaving the 12FG tube in the duodenum. After 3 months this can be changed
by simple endoscopy for a low-profile device (80-84).

Statements:

NJ tubes can be correctly inserted by radiological or direct-vision endoscopic means and

provide short-term proof of the efficacy and safety of this enteral feeding route.

PEG-J tubes and direct PEJ tubes can be endoscopically placed and provide a longer-term
solution to the patient requiring this enteral feeding route.

Recommendations:

LAPEJ is a more permanent method of transpyloric feeding than PEG-J.

Direct jejunostomy is no longer recommended due to the higher rate of complications.

Removal of gastrostomy device

Removal of the PEG tube should be considered when the tube is not used for a few months
even for rehydration or giving medications. However, there are no paediatric
guidelines/recommendations on when tube feeding may stop nor on the timing of subsequent
PEG removal. The European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN)
Guidelines on home enteral nutrition for adults propose to terminate tube feeding when the

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

desired weight has been reached and the patient’s oral intake matches his/her maintenance
needs but without giving recommendations when the feeding tube can be removed (85).
Forbes et al. comment that stopping tube feeding is more difficult than starting it, but the
issue is beyond the scope of this paper (86).

The way to remove the PEG tube will depend on the device in place. For the classical
bumper-type PEG, removal is performed by endoscopic polyp snare retrieval of the inner
bumper (1). For some other primary tube types, the bumper can be collapsed and pulled out
of the stomach through the stoma tract without general anaesthesia (1). The “cut and push”
method consisting of cutting and pushing the internal bumper into the intestinal lumen
allowing a spontaneous migration can be performed in adults (85) but is not recommended in
children due to the theoretical increased risk of mechanical ileus especially in younger
children (87). For the PEG retained by a water-filled balloon, the water has to be removed
from the balloon before removing the tube.

St-Louis et al. performed in 2018 a systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology
and treatment options of gastro-cutaneous fistulae (GCF) in children. Persistent GCF after
tube removal occurred in approximately one-third of paediatric patients, but the definition of
GCF regarding the time of spontaneous non-closure of the stoma tract differed in the studies.
It ranged from 2 to 12 weeks, but most studies defined persistent GCF when one month of
non-closure after tube removal had occurred. There was no significant difference in GCF
incidence between the PEG and surgical techniques. The only risk factor identified was the
duration of the gastrostomy tube in place prior to removal. The described cut-off duration
values varied between 6 and 18 months. Other possible risk factors for GCF were age at
insertion, open technique and fundoplication. Although surgical repair is the standard
treatment for persistent GCF, multiple non-operative therapeutic approaches have been
described including systemic, local and endoscopic therapies – most recently the OTSC. The
OTSC permanently close the fistula according to limited reports in adults (88, 89). Therapy
with ranitidine and proton pump inhibitors, local therapies with 2-occtylcyanoacrylate glue
application and extraperitoneal closure have been used in children with success rates of 58,
100 and 95 %, respectively. Endoscopic approaches with banding, cauterization and clipping,
or clipping alone were used in children with success rates of 75, 63 - 67 and 55 - 83 %,
respectively. The limitations of the systematic review were the low number and quality of the
studies, significant heterogeneity, none was randomized, most of the observational studies
had a small sample size and an important risk-of-bias assessment (90). Denning et al. later in
the same year reported that curettage and cautery of a persistent GCF under general
anaesthesia is a safe technique with a success rate of 67 % in children (91).

Statement:

Several non-operative techniques and surgery can be used to close a fistula post-removal after
one month of non-closure.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

Recommendations:

The decision to permanently remove PEG tube should be broadly discussed and agreed
between the parents, the child and the and the health team providing care.

Quality of Life of children with gastrostomy and jejunal tubes

PEG is a reliable and successful method in infants, children and adolescents allowing a
nutritional and growth catch-up in the long term (92). PEG has however an influence on the
quality of life (QoL) of children and their caregivers through physical, psychological and
social effects on their lives. QoL is one of the patient-related outcomes that should be
monitored to evaluate the effects of treatments, ideally at the beginning and periodically
thereafter to evaluate the impact of this intervention (85).

A systematic review of family experiences with gastrostomy tubes in children with

neurologic impairment showed that gastrostomy tubes affect the lives of children, parents,
and the family cohesion in many ways, both positively and negatively. Improvements and
challenges were described for children’s health and happiness, for parental caregiving and
stress, and for logistics and bonding with family. Gastrostomy tube feeding also changed
relationships within the family, between the family and the medical system, and between the
family and the outside world. Furthermore, experiences varied, with different families
framing similar concepts as positive and negative (93). Glasson et al. looked at the QoL of 21
children with intellectual disability and marked feeding difficulties that underwent a
gastrostomy placement to assist with their nutritional and medication needs and QoL of their
families. They used a QoL framework relevant to children with intellectual disabilities and
their families. For children, the impacts of gastrostomy for the physical health domain were
predominant, supplemented by experiences of value for emotional well-being, social
interactions, leisure activities and independence. For families, gastrostomy was integrated
into multiple aspects of QoL relating to family interactions, parenting, resources and support,
health and safety, and advocacy support for disability. Shortcomings related to difficulties
with equipment and complications looked at the QoL in 50 children with a gastrostomy tube
including paediatric patients referred for laparoscopic gastrostomy using the validated
PedsQoL questionnaire before and 3 months after surgery (94). The total QoL did not
increase but the psychosocial health significantly increased, and this was mainly owing to an
improvement in social QoL. QoL both before and after gastrostomy placement was
significantly lower in children with neurologic impairment but this latter did not influence the
effect of surgery on QoL. A low preoperative body mass index was a predictor for
improvement of QoL after gastrostomy placement (95) The QoL was also studied in 128
children referred for a laparoscopic gastrostomy using PedsQL before and after a mean
follow-up of 4 years after surgery. The study showed that children with severe feeding
difficulty, who had undergone a gastrostomy placement, had significantly lower QoL
compared to a healthy paediatric population. Neurologic impairment, cardiac disease, a
history of gastrointestinal surgery, older age, and the need for jejunal feeding through the
gastrostomy were predictive of even lower QoL (96). The QoL of 30 major caregivers of

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

children with cerebral palsy and gastrostomy tube feeding was assessed using validated
questionnaires. They showed that the QoL from these caregivers was below the average of
the general population (moderate hopelessness in 20 %, moderate and severe anxiety in 33.3
% and moderate and severe depression in 46.7 %). However, their results were very similar
to those found in other studies that evaluated caregivers of paediatric patients with cerebral
palsy that were not using gastrostomy tube feeding, suggesting that the presence of the
gastrostomy did not negatively interfered with the caregiver’s QoL (97). The importance of
gastrostomy tube feeding education in mothers of children with a gastrostomy may increase
positive and decrease negative outcomes for these caregivers during the first 3 months post
gastrostomy placement using validated questionnaires (98).

Statement:

Gastrostomy has an effect on the physical, psychological and social quality of life of children
and their caregivers.

Recommendation:

Quality of life using validated questionnaires should be monitored at the beginning and
periodically thereafter to evaluate the impact of PEG.

Conclusions

Instrumental creation of a direct access to the stomach or jejunum to provide nutritional

support is important to manage chronic diseases in children of all ages. Knowledge of
indications, available techniques and devices helps physicians to provide assistance and
guidance to caregivers, avoiding the added burden of progressive malnutrition to other
ongoing diseases and to improve prognosis.

A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory for the best possible treatment of children with
gastrostomy tubes. Morbidity and mortality are minimized through team decisions on various
subjects, such as indication for insertion, adequate planning and preparation before the
procedure, following up patients, changing to a low-profile tube, managing complications,
and optimal time for permanent removal of the gastrostomy tube.

Monitoring quality of life of children and care givers with respect to enteral tube feeding
should be implemented as part of the holistic approach to chronic disease.

DISCLAIMER

“ESPGHAN is not responsible for the practices of physicians and provides guidelines and
position papers as indicators of best practice only. Diagnosis and treatment is at the discretion
of physicians”.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES

1 Heuschkel RB, Gottrand F, Devarajan K, et al. ESPGHAN position paper on

management of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children and adolescents. J
Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015;60(1):131-41.

2 Löser C, Aschl G, Hébuterne X, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral

nutrition--percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005;24(5):848-61.

3 Arvanitakis M, Gkolfakis P, Despott EJ, et al. Endoscopic management of enteral

tubes in adult patients - Part 1: Definitions and indications. European Society of
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021;53(1):81-92.

4 Bawazir OA Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children less than 10 kilograms:

A comparative study. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2020;26(2):105-10.

5 Daveluy W, Guimber D, Uhlen S, et al. Dramatic changes in home-based enteral

nutrition practices in children during an 11-year period. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2006;43(2):240-4.

6 Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, et al. ESPEN guidelines on definitions and

terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr 2017;36(1):49-64.

7 Braegger C, Decsi T, Dias JA, et al. Practical approach to paediatric enteral nutrition:
a comment by the ESPGHAN committee on nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2010;51(1):110-22.

8 Irving SY, Lyman B, Northington L, et al. Nasogastric tube placement and

verification in children: review of the current literature. Nutr Clin Pract
2014;29(3):267-76.

9 Metheny NA, Krieger MM, Healey F, et al. A review of guidelines to distinguish

between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tubes. Heart Lung
2019;48(3):226-35.

10 Frohlich T, Richter M, Carbon R, et al. Review article: percutaneous endoscopic

gastrostomy in infants and children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31(8):788-801.

11 Khalil ST, Uhing MR, Duesing L, et al. Outcomes of Infants With Home Tube
Feeding: Comparing Nasogastric vs Gastrostomy Tubes. JPEN J Parenter Enteral
Nutr 2017;41(8):1380-85.

12 Mahant S, Cohen E, Nelson KE, et al. Decision-making around gastrostomy tube

feeding in children with neurologic impairment: Engaging effectively with families.
Paediatr Child Health 2018;23(3):209-13.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

13 Ricciuto A, Baird R, Sant'Anna A A retrospective review of enteral nutrition support
practices at a tertiary pediatric hospital: A comparison of prolonged nasogastric and
gastrostomy tube feeding. Clin Nutr 2015;34(4):652-8.

14 Romano C, van Wynckel M, Hulst J, et al. European Society for Paediatric

Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Guidelines for the Evaluation and
Treatment of Gastrointestinal and Nutritional Complications in Children With
Neurological Impairment. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017;65(2):242-64.

15 Szczesniak R, Su W, Clancy JP Dynamics of Disease Progression and Gastrostomy

Tube Placement in Children and Adolescents with Cystic Fibrosis: Application of
Joint Models for Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Data. Intern Med Rev (Wash D C)
2016;2(9).

16 Ricci MF, Alton GY, Ross DB, et al. Gastrostomy Tube Feeding after Neonatal
Complex Cardiac Surgery Identifies the Need for Early Developmental Intervention. J
Pediatr 2016;169(160-5 e1.

17 Sochet AA, Grindy AK, Son S, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy After
Cardiothoracic Surgery in Children Less Than 2 Months Old: An Assessment of
Long-Term Malnutrition Status and Gastrostomy Outcomes. Pediatr Crit Care Med
2020;21(1):50-58.

18 Sienna JL, Saqan R, Teh JC, et al. Body size in children with chronic kidney disease
after gastrostomy tube feeding. Pediatr Nephrol 2010;25(10):2115-21.

19 McGrath KH, Hardikar W Gastrostomy tube use in children with cancer. Pediatr
Blood Cancer 2019;66(7):e27702.

20 Findlay SM, Toews H, Grant C Use of gastrostomy tubes in children and adolescents
with eating disorders and related illnesses. J Adolesc Health 2011;48(6):625-9.

21 Poskanzer SA, Hobensack VL, Ciciora SL, et al. Feeding difficulty and gastrostomy
tube placement in infants with Down syndrome. Eur J Pediatr 2020;179(6):909-17.

22 Al-Attar H, Shergill AK, Brown NE, et al. Percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in

children with Pierre Robin sequence: efficacy, maintenance and complications.
Pediatr Radiol 2012;42(5):566-73.

23 Cairns A, Geraghty J, Al-Rifai A, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and

ventriculoperitoneal shunts: a dangerous combination? Dig Endosc 2009;21(4):228-
31.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

24 Kim JS, Park YW, Kim HK, et al. Is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube
placement safe in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunts? World J Gastroenterol
2009;15(25):3148-52.

25 Fraser JD, Aguayo P, Sharp SW, et al. The safety of laparoscopy in pediatric patients
with ventriculoperitoneal shunts. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2009;19(5):675-8.

26 Abbas PI, Naik-Mathuria BJ, Akinkuotu AC, et al. Routine gastrostomy tube
placement in children: Does preoperative screening upper gastrointestinal contrast
study alter the operative plan? J Pediatr Surg 2015;50(5):715-7.

27 Aumar M, Lalanne A, Guimber D, et al. Influence of Percutaneous Endoscopic

Gastrostomy on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Children. J Pediatr
2018;197(116-20.

28 Franken J, Stellato RK, Tytgat S, et al. Gastro-esophageal Reflux After Laparoscopic

Gastrostomy Placement in Children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2020;70(2):e41-e47.

29 Livingston MH, Shawyer AC, Rosenbaum PL, et al. Fundoplication and gastrostomy
versus percutaneous gastrojejunostomy for gastroesophageal reflux in children with
neurologic impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg
2015;50(5):707-14.

30 Osei H, Munoz-Abraham AS, Kim JS, et al. Perioperative Antibiotics Are

Independent Predictors for Major Complications in Pediatric Patients Undergoing
Gastrostomy Placement. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2019;29(10):1259-63.

31 Lipp A, Lusardi G Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic

gastrostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;2013(11):CD005571.

32 Rawat D, Srivistava A, Thomson M Antibody prophylaxis for children undergoing

percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005;40(2):234-5.

33 van Els AL, van Driel JJ, Kneepkens CF, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis does not reduce
the infection rate following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in infants and
children. Acta Paediatr 2017;106(5):801-05.

34 Alessandri F, Strisciuglio C, Borrazzo C, et al. Antibiotic Prophylaxis for

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Children: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2021;72(3):366-71.

35 Blumenstein I, Shastri YM, Stein J Gastroenteric tube feeding: techniques, problems

and solutions. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20(26):8505-24.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

36 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ, Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a
percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980;15(6):872-5.

37 Gershman G, Thomson M Practical Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Wiley-

Blackwell Ltd; 2021.

38 Winter H, Murphy MS, Mougenot JF, et al. Pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PMPH USA, Ltd; 2021.

39 Michaud L, Robert-Dehault A, Coopman S, et al. One-step percutaneous

gastrojejunostomy in early infancy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2012;54(6):820-1.

40 Gothberg G, Bjornsson S One-Step Insertion of Low-Profile Gastrostomy in Pediatric

Patients vs Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Retrospective Analysis of
Outcomes. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2016;40(3):423-30.

41 Jacob A, Delesalle D, Coopman S, et al. Safety of the One-Step Percutaneous

Endoscopic Gastrostomy Button in Children. J Pediatr 2015;166(6):1526-8.

42 Abdelhadi RA, Rahe K, Lyman B Pediatric Enteral Access Device Management. Nutr
Clin Pract 2016;31(6):748-61.

43 Blumenstein I, Borger D, Loitsch S, et al. A glycerin hydrogel-based wound dressing

prevents peristomal infections after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a
prospective, randomized study. Nutr Clin Pract 2012;27(3):422-5.

44 Pars H, Cavusoglu H Effects of 3 Different Methods of Care on the Peristomal Skin

Integrity of Children with Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tubes: A
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Adv Skin Wound Care 2018;31(4):172-81.

45 León AH, Hebal F, Stake C, et al. Prevention of hypergranulation tissue after

gastrostomy tube placement: A randomised controlled trial of hydrocolloid dressings.
Int Wound J 2019;16(1):41-46.

46 Bennell J Buried bumper syndrome: do we have enough evidence? Br J Community

Nurs 2018;23(Sup7):S28-s30.

47 Kirk L, Shelley A, Battles M, et al. Educating parents on gastrostomy devices:

necessary components to achieve success. J Pediatr Nurs 2014;29(5):457-65.

48 Hucl T, Spicak J Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Best Pract

Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016;30(5):769-81.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

49 Molina Villalba C, Vazquez Rodriguez JA, Gallardo Sanchez F Percutaneous
endoscopic gastrostomy. Indications, care and complications. Med Clin (Barc)
2019;152(6):229-36.

50 Lucendo AJ, Friginal-Ruiz AB Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: An update on

its indications, management, complications, and care. Rev Esp Enferm Dig
2014;106(8):529-39.

51 Balogh B, Kovacs T, Saxena AK Complications in children with percutaneous

endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. World J Pediatr 2019;15(1):12-16.

52 Pih GY, Na HK, Ahn JY, et al. Risk factors for complications and mortality of
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion. BMC Gastroenterol 2018;18(1):101.

53 Sandberg F, Viktorsdottir MB, Salo M, et al. Comparison of major complications in

children after laparoscopy-assisted gastrostomy and percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy placement: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 2018;34(12):1321-27.

54 Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, et al. Complications related to percutaneous

endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. A comprehensive clinical review. J
Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2007;16(4):407-18.

55 Thomson M, Rao P, Rawat D, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and gastro-

oesophageal reflux in neurologically impaired children. World J Gastroenterol
2011;17(2):191-6.

56 Di Leo G, Pascolo P, Hamadeh K, et al. Gastrostomy Placement and Management in

Children: A Single-Center Experience. Nutrients 2019;11(7).

57 McSweeney ME, Jiang H, Deutsch AJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of infants and
children undergoing percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy tube placement. J Pediatr
Gastroenterol Nutr 2013;57(5):663-7.

58 Fortunato JE, Troy AL, Cuffari C, et al. Outcome after percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy in children and young adults. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2010;50(4):390-3.

59 McSweeney ME, Kerr J, Jiang H, et al. Risk factors for complications in infants and
children with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. J Pediatr
2015;166(6):1514-9 e1.

60 Vervloessem D, van Leersum F, Boer D, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

(PEG) in children is not a minor procedure: risk factors for major complications.
Semin Pediatr Surg 2009;18(2):93-7.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

61 Kaur S, Ceballos C, Bao R, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in
pediatric bone marrow transplant patients. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2013;56(3):300-3.

62 Fascetti-Leon F, Gamba P, Dall'Oglio L, et al. Complications of percutaneous

endoscopic gastrostomy in children: results of an Italian multicenter observational
study. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44(8):655-9.

63 Stein J, Schulte-Bockholt A, Sabin M, et al. A randomized prospective trial of

immediate vs. next-day feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in
intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28(11):1656-60.

64 Islek A, Sayar E, Yilmaz A, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children:

Is early feeding safe? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013;57(5):659-62.

65 Corkins MR, Fitzgerald JF, Gupta SK Feeding after percutaneous endoscopic

gastrostomy in children: early feeding trial. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2010;50(6):625-7.

66 Wiernicka A, Matuszczyk M, Szlagatys-Sidorkiewicz A, et al. Tolerability and safety

of early enteral nutrition in children after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
placement: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Clin Nutr 2019;38(4):1544-48.

67 Bury KD, Jambunathan G Effects of elemental diets on gastric emptying and gastric
secretion in man. Am J Surg 1974;127(1):59-64.

68 Ellis ZM, Tan HSG, Embleton ND, et al. Milk feed osmolality and adverse events in
newborn infants and animals: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
2019;104(3):F333-F40.

69 Maxwell CI, Hilden K, Glasgow RE, et al. Evaluation of gastropexy and stoma tract
maturation using a novel introducer kit for percutaneous gastrostomy in a porcine
model. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011;35(5):630-5.

70 Buderus S, Adenaeuer M, Dueker G, et al. Balloon gastrostomy buttons in pediatric

patients: evaluation with respect to size, lifetime in patients, and parent acceptance.
Klin Padiatr 2009;221(2):65-8.

71 Bhambani S, Phan TH, Brown L, et al. Replacement of Dislodged Gastrostomy Tubes

After Stoma Dilation in the Pediatric Emergency Department. West J Emerg Med
2017;18(4):770-74.

72 Michaud L, Guimber D, Blain-Stregloff AS, et al. Longevity of balloon-stabilized

skin-level gastrostomy device. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2004;38(4):426-9.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

73 Hajjat T, Rahhal RM Differences in Durability, Dislodgement, and Other
Complications With Use of Low-Profile Nonballoon Gastrostomy Tubes in Children.
Nutr Clin Pract 2017;32(2):219-24.

74 Vermilyea S, Goh VL Enteral Feedings in Children: Sorting Out Tubes, Buttons, and
Formulas. Nutr Clin Pract 2016;31(1):59-67.

75 Showalter CD, Kerrey B, Spellman-Kennebeck S, et al. Gastrostomy tube

replacement in a pediatric ED: frequency of complications and impact of
confirmatory imaging. Am J Emerg Med 2012;30(8):1501-6.

76 Alerhand S, Tay ET Point-of-care ultrasound for confirmation of gastrostomy tube

replacement in the pediatric emergency department. Intern Emerg Med
2020;15(6):1075-79.

77 Egnell C, Eksborg S, Grahnquist L Jejunostomy enteral feeding in children: outcome

and safety. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2014;38(5):631-6.

78 Smith D, Soucy P Complications of long-term jejunostomy in children. J Pediatr Surg

1996;31(6):787-90.

79 Bobowicz M, Makarewicz W, Polec T, et al. Totally laparoscopic feeding

jejunostomy - a technique modification. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne
2011;6(4):256-60.

80 Belsha D, Thomson M, Dass DR, et al. Assessment of the safety and efficacy of
percutaneous laparoscopic endoscopic jejunostomy (PLEJ). J Pediatr Surg
2016;51(3):513-8.

81 Denzer U, Mergener K, Kanzler S, et al. Mini-laparoscopically guided percutaneous

gastrostomy and jejunostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58(3):434-8.

82 Rumalla A, Baron TH Results of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy, an

alternative method for providing jejunal feeding. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75(8):807-10.

83 Shike M, Latkany L, Gerdes H, et al. Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomies

for enteral feeding. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44(5):536-40.

84 Virnig DJ, Frech EJ, Delegge MH, et al. Direct percutaneous endoscopic
jejunostomy: a case series in pediatric patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67(6):984-
7.

85 Bischoff SC, Austin P, Boeykens K, et al. ESPEN guideline on home enteral

nutrition. Clin Nutr 2020;39(1):5-22.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

86 Forbes D, Grover Z Tube feeding: stopping more difficult than starting. J Paediatr
Child Health 2015;51(3):245-7.

87 Thomas H, Yole J, Livingston MH, et al. Replacing gastrostomy tubes with

collapsible bumpers in pediatric patients: Is it safe to "cut" the tube and allow the
bumper to pass enterally? J Pediatr Surg 2018;53(5):942-45.

88 Heinrich H, Gubler C, Valli PV Over-the-scope-clip closure of long lasting

gastrocutaneous fistula after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube removal in
immunocompromised patients: A single center case series. World J Gastrointest
Endosc 2017;9(2):85-90.

89 Singhal S, Changela K, Culliford A, et al. Endoscopic closure of persistent

gastrocutaneous fistulae, after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube
placement, using the over-the-scope-clip system. Therap Adv Gastroenterol
2015;8(4):182-8.

90 St-Louis E, Safa N, Guadagno E, et al. Gastrocutaneous fistulae in children - A

systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiology and treatment options. J Pediatr
Surg 2018;53(5):946-58.

91 Denning NL, Abd El-Shafy I, Hagen J, et al. Outpatient curettage and electrocautery
as an alternative to primary surgical closure for pediatric gastrocutaneous fistulae. J
Surg Res 2018;229(96-101.

92 Lalanne A, Gottrand F, Salleron J, et al. Long-term outcome of children receiving

percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2014;59(2):172-6.

93 Nelson KE, Lacombe-Duncan A, Cohen E, et al. Family Experiences With Feeding

Tubes in Neurologic Impairment: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics 2015;136(1):e140-
51.

94 Glasson EJ, Forbes D, Ravikumara M, et al. Gastrostomy and quality of life in

children with intellectual disability: a qualitative study. Arch Dis Child
2020;105(10):969-74.

95 Franken J, Stellato RK, Tytgat S, et al. The Effect of Gastrostomy Placement on

Health-Related Quality of Life in Children. J Pediatr Surg 2019;54(11):2268-73.

96 Franken J, Stellato RK, Tytgat S, et al. Health-related quality of life in children after
laparoscopic gastrostomy placement. Qual Life Res 2020;29(1):171-78.

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

97 Figueiredo AA, Lomazi EA, Montenegro MA, et al. Quality of Life in Caregivers of
Pediatric Patients with Cerebral Palsy and Gastrostomy Tube Feeding. Arq
Gastroenterol 2020;57(1):3-7.

98 Suluhan D, Yildiz D, Surer I, et al. Effect of Gastrostomy Tube Feeding Education on

Parents of Children with Gastrostomy. Nutr Clin Pract 2020.

Table 1 – List of Statements and Recommendations

Statements

A multi-disciplinary team should be involved in the decision to place, and the preparation of
a child and family for, PEG insertion.

Routine concomitant fundoplication in the absence of significant GERD is not necessary.

Where it is desirable to avoid a second general anaesthetic then a single stage PEG may be
inserted as long as the requisite experience is available to do so.

NJ tubes can be correctly inserted by radiological or direct-vision endoscopic means and

provide short-term proof of the efficacy and safety of this enteral feeding route.

PEGJ tubes and direct PEJ tubes can be endoscopically placed and provide a longer-term
solution to the patient requiring this enteral feeding route.

Several non-operative techniques and surgery can be used to close a fistula post-removal after
one month of non-closure.

Gastrostomy has an effect on the physical, psychological and social quality of life of children
and their caregivers.

Recommendations

Gastrostomy is recommended to support enteral nutrition in order to avoid malnutrition in

chronic severe diseases.

A PEG is indicated in situations of unsafe swallow.

A PEG is indicated when non-oral nutritional support is anticipated to be required for a

period of longer than 3-6 weeks or when trans-nasal tube feeding is unsafe.

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent PEG site infection is recommended.

The type of device must be chosen according to the experience of the team and expectations

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

of the family.

The standard pull-through technique is generally recommended with a change to a low-

profile balloon/button device once the tract has formed.

Family and caregivers should be trained how to use and manage the inserted device before
discharge from hospital.

If pneumoperitoneum persists longer than 3 days post-procedure, a bowel injury should be

excluded.

Extra care should be taken in patients with severe scoliosis.

Feeding can be initiated as early as 3 hours post procedure in stable child with no
complications.

Iso-osmolar feeds of standard polymeric formula is the best type of food to start with after
the PEG insertion.

Replacing the initial tube with a gastric balloon/button should be recommended to the
families/child who will need long term enteral nutrition to improve quality of life.

Gastric balloons should be replaced every six months, but buttons can be replaced annually.

LAPEJ is a more permanent method of transpyloric feeding than PEGJ.

Direct jejunostomy is no longer recommended due to the higher rate of complications.

The decision to permanently remove PEG tube should be broadly discussed and agreed
between the parents, the child and the and the health team providing care.

Quality of life using validated questionnaires should be monitored at the beginning and
periodically thereafter to evaluate the impact of PEG.

Table 2- Main indications for enteral feeding

Unsafe swallow, as in cerebral palsy or in cleft palate
Inadequate oral intake for supplemental feeds, as in cystic fibrosis or congenital heart disease
awaiting proper weight for surgery and some cases of Down’s syndrome
Long dependency on continuous feeds, as in prematurity or short gut syndrome
Long gap oesophageal atresia in neonates

Acquired conditions that may limit oral feeding (eg. severe oesophageal strictures due to caustic
injuries)

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

Table 3 – Contraindications for PEG placement
Relative contraindications Risks Management

Active gastritis/peptic ulcer Bleeding/perforation Treatment before PEG placement

Minor Coagulation/Bleeding disorders Bleeding Treatment before PEG placement

Previous Abdominal Surgery Change in positions of intra- US or X-Ray, feasibility endoscopic

abdominal organs assessment

Gastric varices Bleeding Adequate preparation and planning

Portal Hypertension(94, 95) Bleeding, worsening of Careful risk assessment and

portal hypertension, severe preparation
peristomal varices
development

Ascites(96) Unsuccessful procedure, Careful evaluation for severe ascites,

bleeding, peritonitis laparoscopically assisted approach

Kyphoscoliosis/Spinal deformity Change in positions of intra- US or X-Ray, feasibility endoscopic

abdominal organs assessment

Peritoneal dialysis(97, 98) Unsuccessful procedure, PEG placement before dialysis start
bleeding, peritonitis or laparoscopically assisted approach

Microgastria/large hiatus hernia Unsuccessful procedure Careful cost/benefit evaluation

Severe psychosis/anorexia nervosa Worsening of psychosis Careful cost/benefit evaluation

Lack of clear identification of the stomach Unsuccessful procedure, X-Ray, feasibility endoscopic
wall during endoscopy(99) perforation and peritonitis assessment, laparoscopically assisted
approach

Absolute contraindications

Uncorrectable coagulopathy

(INR>1.5, Quick Test<50%, PTT>50 s, platelet count<50,000/mm3)

Clear interposition of enlarged organs (eg, liver, colon)

Frank peritonitis

Table 4 - Early and late complications after PEG placement

Early complication Late complications

Abdominal wall abscess or cellulitis Impaired wound healing – granulation – peristomal
infection – track dehiscence
Intraperitoneal leakage of gastric Intraperitoneal leakage of gastric contents
contents
Gastric perforation Gastric perforation
Transhepatic placement Transhepatic placement
Epigastric artery bleeding and Malpositioning of the gastrostomy catheter within

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.

pseudoaneurysm the abdominal wall
Aspiration pneumonia Aspiration pneumonia-GERD worsening
Transcolonic placement Transcolonic placement
Pneumoperitoneum (>3 days) Post pyloric migration with possible dumping
syndrome, mucosal damage-ulcer, lumen
obstruction, pancreatitis
Hemo-peritonitis Buried bumper syndrome
Tube clogging Mechanical tube problems: dislocation, clogging,
porosity, kinking or fracture
Track disruption with PEG exchange to button
Gastroparesis

Table 5 - Major and minor complications after PEG placement

Minor complications Major complications

Granulation Infection Buried bumper
Infection Cellulitis Malposition
Leakage Peritonitis Ileus
Skin erythema, necrosis Sepsis Intraabdominal bleeding
Unplanned tube removal Dehiscence Pneumonia
Tube migration Leakage Gastric ulcer
Tube obstruction Peritonitis Tracheo-oesophageal fistula
Vomiting Gastrocolic fistula
Gastric atonia Massive pneumoperitoneum
Oesophagitis Perforation (Oesophagus, Small intestine, Colon)
Fever Fistula post removal
Oesophageal haematoma

Copyright © ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. All rights reserved.