• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Peg Failures: Should Another Specialty Attempt Placement?

Peg Failures: Should Another Specialty Attempt Placement?

K A Zuberi, MD, B R Zagol, MD, V K Narula, MD, V C Memark, MD, J B Anderson, MD, W Scott Melvin, MD, J W Hazey, MD. The Ohio State University Medical Center: Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Columbus, OH, USA

 

Introduction:

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is the preferred enteral access for patients unable to swallow or with pre-existing or anticipated malnutrition. We evaluated factors surrounding unsuccessful attempts at PEG placement at our institution, specifically reviewing repeat attempts of tube placement by a different service.
 

Methods and Procedures:

We retrospectively reviewed 2664 patients undergoing PEG placement at our institution from January 2003 to December 2010. Variables analyzed included: age, sex, BMI, indication for PEG, previous abdominal surgery, anesthetic type, and complications. Sub-group analysis of re-attempted PEGs by another service, were further reviewed. Analysis was performed by current SAS, (Statistical Analysis System) software.

Results:


A total of 2664 patients were evaluated. There were 1046 female patients and 1618 male patients. There were 2607 successful PEG tube placements representing a 97.86% success rate at first attempt by all providers. We identified 57 unsuccessful initial PEG tube attempts. Of the 57 patients that had a failed attempt, 23 patients underwent successful placement by a different service, with an average of 2.5 days between attempts. Failure to transilluminate was reported in 29 of the 57 patients and in all 23 patients that had successful placement of a PEG tube on the second attempt by a different service. There was an inability to pass the gastroscope in 11 patients, due to an obstructing lesion, there was difficulty in locating the tracker needle in 7 patients, 4 patients had an aborted procedure due to respiratory compromise, and the remaining 6 patients had a variety of reasons including: severe esophagitis, inability to palpate through the abdominal wall, and a non-distensible stomach. Of the patients that underwent successful re-attempt at PEG placement, 9 of the 23 patients required a general anesthetic. The remaining 34 patients were completely failed attempts and underwent some other procedure for feeding tube placement or no procedure at all. Sixteen of the 34 patients had a history of previous abdominal surgery. The most common procedure performed after failed PEG tube attempt was an Open G-tube in 15 patients and a Laparoscopic G-tube in 2 patients. 17 patients underwent no advanced procedure and were left with a nasoenteral feeding tube.
 

Conclusion(s):


An overwhelming majority of PEG tubes are placed at the first attempt. Failure to transilluminate should not be a reason to abort PEG tube placement. Failed attempts at PEG placement should be attempted by another service or different specialty privileged to perform PEGs, especially if unable to transilluminate on the first attempt.
 


Session Number: Poster – Poster Presentations
Program Number: P633
View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search