One‐Step Insertion of Low‐Profile Gastrostomy in Pediatric Patients vs Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Background: Standard care for initiation of enteral feeding in children has been pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pull‐PEG). As an alternative to pull‐PEG, a 1‐step endoscopic procedure for inserting a low‐profile gastrostomy tube “button” has been developed that allows initial placement of a balloon‐retained device. This report presents outcomes of metrics used to compare button placement with pull‐PEG in a pediatric population. Methods: Data were generated from procedural experiences of surgeons on pediatric patients (n = 374) with a variety of clinical indications for gastrostomy. Study population ages ranged from 6 days to 16 years, while weights were from 2–84 kg. Results: The button was successfully placed by the 1‐step procedure in 98% of the respective study population, and median procedural times were 20 and 15 minutes for button and pull‐PEG placements, respectively. Median times to first feeds were equivalent for the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG (6 hours), while times to first nutrition feeds were 12.5 and 10 hours, respectively. Stoma site complications within each study group were similar. Healthy stoma proportions were 65.2% and 73.2% in the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG groups, respectively, at first follow‐up. Conclusions: Similar study outcomes between the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG groups suggest that the former is a feasible alternative to pull‐PEG for initial tube placement in children. The 1‐step method involves a single procedure and reduces patient exposure to anesthesia, operating room time, and the potential for complications compared with a pull‐PEG requirement for multiple procedures.     

Fluoroscopy‐Guided Percutaneous Gastrostomy With Pull Technique for the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Patients With Very Low Vital Capacity

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and usefulness of fluoroscopy‐guided percutaneous gastrostomy (FPG) in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) using a large‐profile gastrostomy tube accompanied by the pull technique. This procedure was done without an accompanying endoscopy or gastropexy. Methods: Thirty‐six patients with ALS underwent FPG using a large‐profile gastrostomy tube accompanied by the pull technique. A 24 Fr pull‐type tube was inserted under fluoroscopic guidance into the mouth and pulled to the upper‐abdominal puncture site using a snare. The technical success rate, occurrence of complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: The technical success rate was 100%. There were no procedure‐related mortalities or respiratory complications. The mean forced vital capacity of the patients was 732 mL (17.7% of the normal predicted value). During the procedure, 16 patients required ventilator support by nasal mask or tracheostomy. The tube indwelling period ranged from 1 to 24 months (average, 9.3). During this period, all the tubes were maintained in a proper position. In 18 patients, the tube was exchanged after 6 months without any problems. Conclusions: The FPG procedure using a 24 Fr tube and the pull technique shows a high rate of technical success. This procedure has a low risk for respiratory complications because endoscopic guidance is not needed. In addition, gastropexy is not required, which allows a large‐profile catheter to be inserted during a single procedure.     

经皮内镜下胃/空肠造口术并发症的预防与治疗

目的:重点探讨经皮内镜下胃肠造口术并发症的预防及治疗. 方法:对2002年10月至2003年12月间85例恶性肿瘤病人共行88例次经皮内镜下胃造口(PEG)和经皮内镜下空肠造口(PEJ),回顾性统计并发症的发生情况.所有PEG/J均采用拉出法. 结果:85例病人PEG/J术后无操作相关死亡,无严重并发症,但微小并发症发生率为8.2%(7/85).7例病人发生8次微小并发症,分别为切口感染2例、导管断裂2例、导管尖端移位2例、导管缠绕1例、导管渗漏1例,均通过非手术治疗后治愈. 结论:经皮内镜下胃/空肠造口术操作简便、安全,加强围手术期的处理是控制并发症的关键.     

Peritonitis after gastrostomy tube replacement: a case series and review of literature

Background: The placement of feeding gastrostomy (G) tubes through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) technique has become common because of its simplicity and safety. The majority of the serious complications are reported to occur within a few days of initial tube placement and happen in fewer than 3% of cases. Long‐term reported complications of this procedure include occlusion or breakage of the G‐tube, requiring reinsertion. This report describes the complication of intraperitoneal placement and the development of peritonitis after replacement of an established PEG tube and reviews the pertinent world literature. Methods: A retrospective review of cases of intraperitoneal insertion of replacement G‐tubes was done as well as a Medline search for cases of intraperitoneal insertion of replacement G‐tube or development of peritonitis after replacement tube insertion. Results: Three new cases of inadvertent intraperitoneal insertion of a replacement G‐tube in adult patients with mature tracts are reported. An additional 5 cases have been previously described in adults. Significant morbidity was associated with this complication, and 4 deaths were related to it. Methods used to determine whether the replacement G‐tube was intragastric were not uniform. Conclusions: There have been few reports of intraperitoneal insertion of replacement G‐tubes in patients with mature (>30 days) stoma sites. The cases presented in this report highlight for the clinician the importance of considering this complication, particularly if there are any difficulties with the reinsertion. Prospective studies are needed to determine the frequency of this complication and the optimal protocol for PEG replacement.     

Unsedated percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion: a safe, effective, and well-tolerated method

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion is an uncomfortable procedure that has traditionally required sedation. In some patients, PEG tube insertion can be postponed or is not possible due to the risk of sedation. This article is a retrospective case series of 10 patients who have undergone unsedated peroral PEG tube insertion in the past 4 years at Stafford Hospital in the United Kingdom. Methods: Between 2006 and 2010, 10 patients who were identified by the nutrition team as needing a PEG tube underwent unsedated peroral PEG tube insertion. Patients were given pharyngeal anesthesia (lidocaine 1%), and the PEG tubes were inserted using the push‐pull technique and local anesthesia. The procedures were performed without complications. Results: Those patients who were able to respond stated they would be willing to have the procedure performed again using this method. It was acceptable to them and not as unpleasant as they had expected. Conclusions: This case series demonstrates that gastroenterology units without specialized equipment are able to safely insert PEGs in patients who are at increased risk for intravenous sedation.     

Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tube Placement Using a Balloon Catheter in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Background: Patients with head and neck cancer frequently require gastrostomy feeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with push‐type gastrostomy tubes using a rupture‐free balloon (RFB) catheter under computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic guidance in patients with head and neck cancer with swallowing disturbance or trismus. Methods: Percutaneous CT and fluoroscopic gastrostomy placement of push‐type gastrostomy tubes using a RFB catheter was performed in consecutive patients with head and neck cancer between April 2007 and July 2010. The technical success, procedure duration, and major or minor complications were evaluated. Results: Twenty‐one patients (14 men, 7 women; age range, 55–78 years; mean age, 69.3 years) underwent gastrostomy tube placement. The tumor location was the pharynx (n = 8), oral cavity (n = 7), and gingiva (n = 6). Gastrostomy was performed in 15 patients during treatment and 6 patients after treatment. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy was technically successful in all patients. The median procedure time was 35 ± 19 (interquartile range) minutes (range, 25–75). The average follow‐up time interval was 221 days (range, 10–920 days). No major complications related to the procedure were encountered. No tubes failed because of blockage, and neither tube dislodgement nor intraperitoneal leakage occurred during the follow‐up periods. Conclusion: Percutaneous CT and fluoroscopic‐guided gastrostomy with push‐type tubes using a RFB catheter is a relatively safe and effective means of gastric feeding, with high success and low complication rates in patients with head and neck cancer in whom endoscopy was not feasible.     

Gastrostomy tube placement outcomes: comparison of surgical, endoscopic, and laparoscopic methods.

BACKGROUND: Advances in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic (LAP) techniques now allow for less invasive placement of gastrostomy tubes. This study compared morbidities and feeding outcomes of these procedures with standard surgical (OPEN) insertion. METHODS: Gastrostomy tubes placed in the operating room by the PEG, LAP, and OPEN methods were compared for insertion times, tube insertion and maintenance complications, enteral feeding complications, and feeding start days. Patients with concomitant intra-abdominal procedures were excluded. Patients were followed for 6 days after tube placement. RESULTS: A total of 91 catheters (PEG = 23, LAP = 39, OPEN = 29) were inserted in the operating room for indications of ventilator-dependent respiratory failure (45), dysphagia (30), head and neck cancer (9), and decreased mental status (7). No patients were fed on the day of the procedure. Insertion times were significantly longer (p < .05) in the OPEN technique (68 minutes) vs LAP (48 minutes) and PEG (30 minutes). Insertion complications occurred in the LAP and PEG cohorts (3 failed LAP, 1 failed PEG), and maintenance complications were higher in the LAP group, including 1 episode each of cellulitis, bleeding, and serous drainage. Twenty enteral feeding complications in 17 patients occurred in all groups (9 in LAP vs 6 in PEG and 5 in OPEN), and included emesis (6), high residual (5), diarrhea (3), ileus (3), nausea (2), and pain after feeding (1). Overall complications were significantly lower in the PEG (7) and OPEN (5) groups compared with the LAP group (15). Feeding start day was significantly delayed in the OPEN technique (2.1 days vs 1.7 in PEG and 1.5 in LAP); however, no difference was found in days to goal among groups (4.4-4.8 days). CONCLUSIONS: PEG should be the procedure of choice for placement of gastrostomy tubes. If PEG is contraindicated, then OPEN technique may be best due to fewer complications, although insertion time is longer than the LAP technique.     

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy complication rates and compliance with the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for the management of antithrombotic therapy

Background: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has published recommendations in regards to anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy management during endoscopic procedures. So far, no study has assessed either ASGE recommendation compliance during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement or procedure‐associated complication rates as related to the observance of these recommendations. The aims of this study were to compare the incidence and type of complications during PEG placement in patients receiving or not receiving AC and/or AP therapy and to determine the compliance with ASGE's AC and AP management guidelines. Methods: Medical files of patients who underwent PEG placement from January 2004 to December 2008 were reviewed. Clinical and procedure‐related data were recorded. Patients were separated into 1 of 2 groups: patients under AP and/or AC therapy prior to PEG placement (n = 51) and a control group of patients (n = 40) not receiving any AP and/or AC treatment at least 6 months prior to the procedure. Results: A total of 91 patients (51 cases) were included. Groups were comparable in demographics and clinical characteristics. No differences in the frequency and type of complications were found between groups. ASGE's recommendations were not followed in any of these patients. Conclusions: Overall PEG placement complication rate was 13.7%. AP therapy may be safely discontinued closer to the time of endoscopic procedure than the time currently recommended by the ASGE guidelines.     

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in treatment of head and neck cancer: a comprehensive review and call for evidence-based medicine

Background: Patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs) are at increased risk of experiencing malnutrition, which is associated with poor outcomes. Advances in the treatment of HNCs have resulted in improved outcomes that are associated with severe toxic oral side effects, placing patients at an even greater risk of malnutrition. Prophylactic placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes before treatment may be beneficial in patients with HNC, especially those undergoing more intense treatment regimens. PEG tube placement, however, is not without risks. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted. Results: Systematic evidence assessing both the benefits and harm associated with prophylactic PEG tube placement in patients undergoing treatment for HNC is weak, and benefits and harm have not been established. Conclusions: More research is necessary to inform physician behavior on whether prophylactic PEG tube placement is warranted in the treatment of HNC.     

Nutritional factors associated with survival following enteral tube feeding in patients with motor neurone disease

Background:  Motor neurone disease (MND) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease leading to limb weakness, wasting and respiratory failure. Prolonged poor nutritional intake causes fatigue, weight loss and malnutrition. Consequently, disease progression requires decisions to be made regarding enteral tube feeding. The present study aimed to investigate the survival, nutritional status and complications in patients with MND treated with enteral tube feeding. Methods:  A retrospective case note review was performed to identify patients diagnosed with MND who were treated with enteral tube feeding. A total of 159 consecutive cases were identified suitable for analysis. Patients were treated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) or nasogastric feeding tube (NGT). Nutritional status was assessed by body mass index (BMI) and % weight loss (% WL). Serious complications arising from tube insertion and prescribed daily energy intake were both recorded. Results:  Median survival from disease onset was 842 days [interquartile range (IQR) 573–1263]. Median time from disease onset to feeding tube was PEG 521 days (IQR 443–1032), RIG 633 days (IQR 496–1039) and NGT 427 days (IQR 77–781) (P = 0.28). Median survival from tube placement was PEG 200 (IQR 106–546) days, RIG 216 (IQR 83–383) days and NGT 28 (IQR 14–107) days. Survival between gastrostomy and NGT treated patients was significant (P ≤ 0.001). Analysis of serious complications by nutritional status was BMI (P = 0.347) and % WL (P = 0.489). Conclusions:  Nutritional factors associated with reduced survival were weight loss, malnutrition and severe dysphagia. Serious complications were not related to nutritional status but to method of tube insertion. There was no difference in survival between PEG and RIG treated patients.     

Early initiation of enteral feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement.

Enteral feeding through the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube is usually initiated about 12 to 24 hours after insertion of the tube. There have been earlier studies evaluating the efficacy of early initiation of enteral feedings that had encouraging results. However, delayed initiation of feeding following PEG placement continues to be practiced widely. We believe that feeding can be done earlier without any increase in associated morbidity or mortality and with obvious reduction in the need for parenteral nutrition and healthcare costs. We evaluated a protocol to initiate enteral nutrition 4 hours after the PEG tube insertion with subsequent discharge of the outpatients on the same day. We conducted a prospective study to assess the efficacy of early initiation of PEG feeding. We enrolled 77 patients in our study who were having PEG tubes placed for enteral feeding. Only patients who had a PEG placed for gastric venting procedures were excluded from our study. During the course of our study, no patient had to be excluded for the latter reason. Patients were evaluated by the physician performing the procedure, 4 hours after the tube was inserted. Their vital signs were checked, and a thorough abdominal examination was performed. Minimal tenderness around the PEG site was the most frequent finding. Otherwise, all the patients had a benign abdominal examination. The tube was flushed with 60 mL of sterile water. Following the examination, orders were given to restart the feedings. These patients were followed for a 30-day period to evaluate complications associated with PEG tube placement and early initiation of PEG feeding. There was one case of aspiration pneumonia (1.3%) and one death that was attributed to the underlying disease out of our 77 patients. Early initiation of enteral feeding after PEG tube placement can be successfully completed with a systematic protocol and close observation. Not only was this protocol found to be safe, it can also have significant cost savings by eliminating the need for inpatient hospitalization for the procedure.     

Inhibition of Gastroesophageal Reflux by Semi‐solid Nutrients in Patients With Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Background: Aspiration is one of the major complications after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The administration of semi‐solid nutrients by means of gastrostomy tube has recently been reported to be effective in preventing aspiration pneumonia. The effects of semi‐solid nutrients on gastroesophageal reflux, intragastric distribution, and gastric emptying were evaluated. Methods: Semi‐solid nutrients were prepared by liquid nutrients mixed with agar at the concentration of 0.5%. The distribution of the administered radiolabeled liquid and semi‐solid nutrients was monitored by a scintillation camera for 15 post‐PEG patients. The percentage of esophageal reflux, the distribution of the proximal and distal stomach, and the gastric emptying time were evaluated. Results: The percentage of gastroesophageal reflux was significantly decreased in semi‐solid nutrients (0.82 ± 1.27%) compared with liquid nutrients (3.75 ± 4.25%), whereas the gastric emptying time was not different. The distribution of semi‐solid nutrients was not different from liquid nutrients in the early phase, whereas higher retention of liquid nutrients in the proximal stomach was observed in the late phase. Conclusions: Gastroesophageal reflux was significantly inhibited by semi‐solid nutrients. One of the mechanisms of the inhibition is considered to be an improvement in the transition from the proximal to distal stomach in semi‐solid nutrients.     

经皮内镜下胃造瘘术在上段食管癌患者中的临床应用

目的探讨经皮内镜下胃造瘘术（percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy,PEG）在上段食管癌患者中的临床应用。方法回顾分析2005年1月～2010年3月在本院行PEG术的25例上段食管癌患者的临床资料。结果所有患者PEG均获成功,术后患者营养状况明显好转。无手术相关死亡病例发生,25例患者中1例术后出现黑便,3例出现造瘘口局部少许渗血,2例出现造瘘管周围皮肤感染,经对症处理后均改善。结论PEG技术操作简单易行、安全,创伤小,并发症少,可避免食管上段癌患者营养状态的恶化,是上段食管癌并恶性梗阻患者行肠内营养支持治疗的可供选择的一种方法。     

Does percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy prevent gastro-oesophageal reflux during the enteral feeding of elderly patients?

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is reported to be a safe method for enteral feeding, although its ability to prevent gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) during enteral feeding remains controversial. In 12 elderly patients fed enterally to avoid the risk of tracheal aspiration, we have compared two 24-h oesophageal pH profiles, one recorded when enteral feeding was delivered at first via a nasogastric tube (NGT), and the other via a PEG. The second recording was always performed at least 8 days after gastrostomy placement. Enteral nutrition consisted of 500 ml of a polymeric diet delivered 3 times a day at 08:00, 13:00 and 18:00. After gastrostomy placement, enteral feeding was associated with a pathological acid reflux in 8 out of 12 patients. In all of these 8 patients, GOR was mostly related to a high number of reflux episodes. In 4 out of 8 patients, GOR occurred only during the 3 h following the administration of the nutritive diet. In 4 of the patients, GOR did not occur any more after removal of the NGT, whilst gastrostomy placement was followed by GOR in 5 patients. GOR during enteral feeding via PEG is common in elderly subjects. We have shown that a chronological relationship existed in some patients between the endoscopic procedure and the onset of a pathological GOR.     

Predictive factors of mortality after PEG insertion: guidance for clinical practice

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is considered the preferred route for long‐term enteral feeding. The aim of this study was to determine predictors of an increased mortality risk after PEG insertion. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted during a 13‐year period in the gastroenterology department of Erlangen University Hospital. The authors completed a questionnaire with details of demographic data, diagnosis, indication for PEG, type of tube, and cause of death. Patients were contacted regularly at scheduled appointments. Results: In total, 787 patients (574 male [72.9%]) underwent PEG placement by the pull technique. The main underlying disease was malignant (75.6%). By the end of the study period, 614 patients had died. The average survival time was 720 days. The 30‐, 60‐, 90‐day and 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year mortality rates amounted to 6.5%, 9.8%, 13%, 32.1%, 59.3%, and 69.8%, respectively. Predictive factors of increased 30‐day mortality were higher age, lower body mass index (BMI), and the presence of diabetes mellitus. The presence of all 3 variables served as an indicator to detect high‐risk patients, with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.64. Conclusion: Mortality predictors for patients after PEG insertion are higher age, lower BMI, and the presence of diabetes mellitus. To avoid unnecessary and dangerous examinations in high‐risk patients, the above‐mentioned predictive factors of mortality should be checked before PEG placement.     

Colocutaneous fistula: an unusual complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

We describe an unusual complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, the formation of a colocutaneous fistula. The complication resulted from penetration of both the colon and stomach at the time of catheter placement. This problem went unrecognized for several months until the feeding catheter was removed, and its replacement could be advanced only as far as the colon. Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy are reviewed, and the problem of gastrocolic fistula formation secondary to gastrostomy placement is discussed.     

Understanding Why Patients Die After Gastrostomy Tube Insertion: A Retrospective Analysis of Mortality

Objectives: To understand the causes of mortality of inpatients receiving a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube compared with a survival curve predicted from a model proposed by Levine et al (2007). Design: A retrospective study of patients receiving a PEG over an 18‐month period. Setting: Royal United Hospital Bath, a district general hospital in the southwest of England. Patients: Fifty‐five cases, with 44 found eligible for inclusion. Interventions: A Levine score was calculated for this cohort. A survival curve after PEG was produced and compared with the Kaplan‐Meier curve predicted by the Levine model. Main Outcome Measures: Mortality over a period of 1 year. Results: The mortality at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 16%, 20%, 25%, and 28%, respectively. This matched the predicted death rate from the Levine model closely (Pearson's rank correlation coefficient = 0.96). Conclusions: The authors found that the mortality of patients receiving a PEG followed that predicted for a similar cohort of patients without PEGs in the Levine model. This suggests that the deaths observed were due to underlying comorbidities, can provide a baseline for mortality targets for PEG services, and is useful patient information regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure. The findings demonstrate that PEG does no harm and supports the accepted opinion that nutrition support is associated with a better outcome. Furthermore, they show that most deaths occur within the first month of placement and would support arguments for delaying placement until outcome from the underlying condition is more predictable.     

Management of a traumatic gastric ulcer with a low-profile gastrostomy tube.

Since the advent of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in 1980, they have become the device of choice for providing long-term enteral nutrition. Despite their overall safety, a number of complications can occur after PEG placement. Bleeding is usually a minor complication associated with PEG placement that occurs soon after the procedure and is most often caused by puncture of an abdominal wall vessel. More severe bleeding can occur when a branch of one of the gastric arteries is punctured. There are only a few case reports of traumatic gastric ulceration secondary to the internal bolster of a PEG. The internal bolsters are either balloons or dome shaped, and are 1.5-2.0 cm in height. We report a case in which a patient developed hemorrhage from a gastric ulcer induced by a balloon-type PEG tube that was resolved only after replacement with a tube manufactured with a low-profile internal bolster that was only 0.3 mm in height. The protruding tip of a balloon-type gastrostomy tube was believed to have caused traumatic injury to the gastric mucosa in our patient, causing ulceration. Usually, removal of the tube and placement in a different location may solve the problem. However, we believe that the PEG tube fashioned with a low-profile internal bumper is a safer option.     

Buried bumper syndrome: cut and leave it alone!

Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) occurs due to the overgrowth of gastric mucosa over the inner bumper of a gastrostomy tube. Various therapeutic approaches have been described for the management of BBS. However, no standardized clinical protocol deals with this complication. The authors describe their experience of dealing with BBS. Case notes of the patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) between February 2002 and December 2007 at their institute were reviewed retrospectively, and cases of BBS were analyzed. During this 71-month period, 356 PEG procedures were preformed. Seven patients with BBS were identified from the case note review (incidence of 1.97%). Attempts at endoscopic removal of the buried bumper were made but unfortunately failed. In view of the patients' associated comorbidity, the buried bumpers in these patients were left in situ, and a new PEG was inserted adjacent to the first site in 6 individuals. In 1 patient, a jejunal extension tube was inserted through the original PEG tube for feeding. No complications from the buried bumper arose in these patients during a median follow-up of 18 months (range, 1-46 months). Some patients being fed by a PEG tube are in poor general health and have significant comorbidities. They are therefore poor candidates for surgical or endoscopic removal of a buried bumper. In such patients, leaving the internal bumper in situ should be considered as a relatively safe treatment option.     

Evaluation of Gastropexy and Stoma Tract Maturation Using a Novel Introducer Kit for Percutaneous Gastrostomy in a Porcine Model

Background: Fluoroscopic placement of percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) requires the use of T‐bar fasteners to affix the stomach to the anterior abdominal wall; the effect of T‐fasteners on stoma tract maturation is unknown. The authors studied PG stoma tract maturation, comparing PG + gastropexy with standard percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Methods: Sixteen pigs underwent PG placement using a novel introducer kit. Three absorbable suture T‐fasteners were placed around the stoma site, and PG was placed using the Russell method. A standard PEG was then placed using the Ponsky pull method, allowing each animal to serve as its own control. Gross and histopathological integrity of stoma tract formation was assessed at 1–3 weeks. Results: At sacrifice, all PGs were intact with no evidence of infection, disruption, or significant leakage. Stoma tracts of all test and control sites were robust and histologically mature at all time points. Stoma tract diameters were also similar between test and control PGs (mean ± SEM: control 13.1 ± 0.7 mm, test 12.1 ± 0.4 mm; P = .2, n = 15). Histopathological evaluation demonstrated a generally comparable tissue response between test and control PGs, with slight decreases in fibrosis noted in test compared to control sites (P = .02, n = 15). Conclusions: Stoma tract maturation of PG with gastropexy provides similar results to standard PEG. Stoma tracts were mature at 1 week regardless of placement method. Placement and performance of PG using the new introducer kit with novel T‐fasteners and absorbable suture yields effective gastric anchoring and has similar ease of use as standard PEG placement.