Abstract

Percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is often the preferred approach to addressing nutritional deficits in patients requiring long-term feeding access. Numerous major and minor complications may occur with PEG tube insertion; buried bumper syndrome is a rare, long-term outcome of PEG tube placement, comprising <2.4% of complications. We present the case of a 60-year-old female with laryngeal cancer whom developed acute buried bumper syndrome after PEG tube insertion which was managed successfully with surgical intervention.

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is often the preferred approach to addressing nutritional deficits in patients requiring long-term feeding access. The benefits of PEG tube placement pertain to the continuous stimulation of the bowel. Complications with PEG tube placements occur in up to ~30% of patients, with the incidence of buried bumper syndrome (BBS) be ~0.3–2.4%.

CASE REPORT

We present the case of a 60-year-old female who presented with a 3-month history of hoarseness and dysphagia in the setting of a left pyriform sinus hypopharyngeal lesion. The patient underwent evaluation in the operating room demonstrating deviation of the left arytenoid and aryepiglottic fold with associated enlargement and edema, prompting a tracheostomy placement in addition to lesion biopsy in order to secure a safe airway. The left pyriform sinus biopsy was remarkable for invasive, moderately differentiate squamous cell carcinoma. General surgery was consulted for placement of PEG tube secondary to high risks of aspiration and dysphagia caused by mass effect from the laryngeal cancer. A 20 French Corpak PEG tube was placed and secured with the internal retention bumper position appropriately against the gastric wall without tension; 2–0 prolene suture was utilized in order secure the bumper to the skin. Postoperative tube feeds were tolerated well and the patient was subsequently discharged from the hospital. The patient returned to the emergency department on postoperative Day 4 with complaints of significant, new onset abdominal pain. A computed tomography of abdomen and pelvis was obtained with evidence of BBS (Fig. 1). The patient was later taken to the operating room, where a laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed encompassing the necrotic portion of the stomach. The abdominal wall had developed an abscess in the left upper quadrant, prompting a laparoscopic 18F jejunostomy tube placement in order to avoid the previously involved region. The jejunum was then tacked to the abdominal wall and marked with 5 mm titanium endoclips in order to make replacement jejunostomy feasible with interventional radiology should the feeding access be dislodged. The abdominal wall abscess cavity measuring 30 × 20 × 10cm was appropriately debrided, the fascia approximated, and the wound closed with a negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device. The patient did inadvertently remove jejunostomy tube a few days later, which was replaced by interventional radiology. The patient tolerated tube feeds well and did not experience any other complications post operatively relating to feeding access. The NPWT sponge changes continued for ~2 months at which point the wound was amenable to simple packing and continued to heal appropriately.

Internal retention bolster in subcutaneous tissue.
Figure 1

Internal retention bolster in subcutaneous tissue.

DISCUSSION

PEG tube complications includes procedure-related complications as well as postprocedure complications. Procedure-related complications include risk of aspiration, bleeding, perforation of viscera with peritonitis and prolonged ileus. Risk factors of the procedure which contribute to aspiration include the supine position, sedation, neurological impairment and age; the risk of aspiration can be reduced with avoidance of over sedation, avoidance of excessive insufflation of the stomach and thorough aspiration of gastric contents [1, 2]. Acute bleeding is an uncommon complication, with risk factors being bleeding disorders and therapeutic anticoagulation [3]. Transient pneumoperitoneum occurs in ~50% of patients subsequent to PEG tube placement; however, this tends to be generally not be clinically significant [4]. Pneumoperitoneum becomes concerning when associated with signs of peritonitis, leukocytosis and evidence of visceral damage or leakage. Prolonged ileus is a rare complications occurring in 1–2% of patients, which typically is managed with conservative measures, including uncapping the PEG tube [5–7].

Postprocedure complication include PEG tube site infections, leakage and irritation surrounding PEG site, gastric ulcers or hemorrhage, fistulous tracts, inadvertent removal and BBS. PEG tubes have a high infection rate of ~30%, the vast majority are minor with <2% requiring aggressive medical or surgical intervention [8]. Risks factors for infection include poorly controlled diabetes, poor nutritional status, chronic steroid therapy and inadequate skin incision size preventing drainage of bacteria and gastric contents. Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics 30 min prior to skin incision for prevention of site infections [9–12].

BBS, a result of gastric tube migration, is a rare complication occurring in up to 2.4% of the population; typically, presentation involves peritubal infection or leakage, abdominal pain, and resistance to formula infusion. Risk factors for developing this complication include malnutrition particularly immunocompromised patients with a body mass index <20, disorders or drugs associated with poor wound healing, and most importantly excessive tension between the internal and external bolsters—either through surgical technique or inadvertent pulling on the tube causing tension or dislodgement of the tube [9, 11, 12].

Only a limited number of published reports in English remark on the occurrence of BBS within the first month of PEG tube placement, with the earliest report occurring 3 days postprocedure in an Alzheimer’s patient [11, 13]. In this patient, the tube was removed by external traction under endoscopic visualization without resistance or signs of complication to the abdominal wall. The patient was admitted for antibiotics and observation, and no additional feeding access was pursued as patient was tolerating some level of oral intake. Follow-up imaging prior to discharge did not indicate evidence of complication [13].

The most commonly utilized classification of BBS is described by Orsi et al.

Notably, there are currently no formal guidelines describing the management of BBS. The treatment considerations described above [Table 1] [11] are based on typical experience of management reported in the literature, with the most widely described approach to management being endoscopic or surgical removal of the tube. Our case of BBS, classified as a grade III by Orsi et al. system, indeed, required surgical intervention with debridement, NPWT, and alternative feeding access.

Table 1

BBS grading system described by Orsi et al. with the recommended treatments [11]

GradeDescriptionTreatment consideration
IPartial migration with asymptomatic presentation or mild symptoms such as abdominal pain or ostomy infectionEndoscopic management
IISubtotal migration, in which the patient presents with dysfunction of the tube and extravasation of the feeding contentSurgical management
IIITotal migration that is manifested by tube obstructionSurgical management
GradeDescriptionTreatment consideration
IPartial migration with asymptomatic presentation or mild symptoms such as abdominal pain or ostomy infectionEndoscopic management
IISubtotal migration, in which the patient presents with dysfunction of the tube and extravasation of the feeding contentSurgical management
IIITotal migration that is manifested by tube obstructionSurgical management
Table 1

BBS grading system described by Orsi et al. with the recommended treatments [11]

GradeDescriptionTreatment consideration
IPartial migration with asymptomatic presentation or mild symptoms such as abdominal pain or ostomy infectionEndoscopic management
IISubtotal migration, in which the patient presents with dysfunction of the tube and extravasation of the feeding contentSurgical management
IIITotal migration that is manifested by tube obstructionSurgical management
GradeDescriptionTreatment consideration
IPartial migration with asymptomatic presentation or mild symptoms such as abdominal pain or ostomy infectionEndoscopic management
IISubtotal migration, in which the patient presents with dysfunction of the tube and extravasation of the feeding contentSurgical management
IIITotal migration that is manifested by tube obstructionSurgical management

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we recommend the consideration of BBS, a traditionally late complication of PEG tube placement, as a potential early complication, as well. Based on our analysis and review of the literature, our case of BBS on postprocedure Day 4 is the earliest case reported in the literature which required surgical intervention.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None declared.

INFORMED CONSENT

All attempts have been exhausted in trying to contact the patient, next of kin, and/or parent/guardian for informed consent to publish their information, but consent could not be obtained.

REFERENCES

1.

Pinho
 
J
,
Libânio
 
D
,
Pimentel-Nunes
 
P
,
Dinis-Ribeiro
 
M
.
The challenging acute buried bumper syndrome: a case report
.
GE Port J Gastroenterol.
 
2018
;
25
:
151
3
.

2.

Safadi
 
BY
,
Marks
 
JM
,
Ponsky
 
JL
.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
.
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am
 
1998
;
8
:
551
68
.

3.

Hament
 
JM
,
Bax
 
NM
,
van der
 
Zee
 
DC
,
De Schryver
 
JE
,
Nesselaar
 
C
.
Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with or without concomitant antireflux surgery in 96 children
.
J Pediatr Surg
 
2001
;
36
:
1412
5
.

4.

Foutch
 
PG
.
Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy. Recognition, prevention, and treatment
.
Gastroin- test Endosc Clin N Am
 
1992
;
2
:
231
48
.

5.

Larson
 
DE
,
Burton
 
DD
,
Schroeder
 
KW
,
DiMagno
 
EP
.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Indications, success, complications, and mortality in 314 consecutive patients
.
Gastroenterology
 
1987
;
93
:
48
52
.

6.

Baskin
 
WN
.
Enteral access techniques
.
Gastroenterologist
 
1996
;
4
:
S40
67
.

7.

Sanders
 
DS
,
Carter
 
MJ
.
Antibiotic prophylaxis after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion
.
All encompassing study is needed
.
BMJ
 
2000
;
320
:
870A
.

8.

Park
 
SK
,
Kim
 
JY
,
Koh
 
SJ
,
Lee
 
YJ
,
Jang
 
HJ
,
Park
 
SJ
.
Small intestine and nutrition research group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID). Complications of percutaneous endoscopic and radiologic gastrostomy tube insertion: a KASID (Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases) study
.
Surg Endosc.
 
2019
;
33
:
750
6
.

9.

Parrish C, Lynch CR, Fang JC.

Prevention and management of complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes
.
Practical Gastroenterol.
 
2004
;
22
:66–76.

10.

Cyrany
 
J
,
Rejchrt
 
S
,
Kopacova
 
M
,
Bures
 
J
.
Buried bumper syndrome: a complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
.
World J Gastroenterol.
 
2016
;
22
:
618
27
.

11.

Ayas
 
MF
,
Hoilat
 
GJ
,
Affas
 
S
.
An early presentation of buried bumper syndrome
.
Cureus
 
2020
;
12
:
e10969
.

12.

Devia
 
J
,
Santivañez
 
JJ
,
Rodríguez
 
M
,
Rojas
 
S
,
Cadena
 
M
,
Vergara
 
A
.
Early recognition and diagnosis of buried bumper syndrome: a report of three cases
.
Surg J (N Y).
 
2019
;
5
:
76
81
.

13.

Azevedo
 
R
,
Caldeira
 
A
,
Banhudo
 
A
.
Early presentation of buried bumper syndrome
.
GE Port J Gastroenterol
 
2018
;
25
:
154
6
.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com