Low-profile balloon gastrostomy – prospective evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12923/pielxxiw-2025-0040Keywords:
quality of life, enteral nutrition, gastrostomyAbstract
Aim. The aim of this study was to evaluate selected parameters of the nutritional treatment process in Home Enteral Nutrition (HEN) patients with a low-profile balloon gastrostomy.
Material and methods. Fourteen HEN patients who had a low-profile balloon gastrostomy in December 2024 were included in the study. Patient data were collected from medical records from the HEN procedure qualification and during follow-up visits.
Results. The majority of patients had normal biochemical parameters for nutritional status at baseline and during follow-up, while their BMI was below normal. None of the patients had any discharge around the gavage site. All patients had no problems with tube rotation or patency. The presence of a reaction around the gavage site was noted in four patients at the start of follow-up, with improvement observed thereafter. Granulation tissue was observed in one patient at the time of low-profile gastrostomy insertion.
Conclusions. HEN patients with low-profile balloon gastrostomy placement generally have a low incidence of complications related to the presence of artificial access to the gastrointestinal tract.. The use of this type of tube in daily clinical practice should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is advocated that this type of tube should be used more frequently in the HEN procedure.
References
1. Sobocki J, Kunecki M, Zmarzły A, et al. Standardy żywienia dojelitowego dorosłych pacjentów w warunkach domowych. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Via Medica; 2019.
2. Szumilak M, Owczarek J, Nowak K. Wyroby medyczne stosowane w żywieniu dojelitowym. Farmacja Polska. 2021;77(9):571-5802021. https://doi.org/10.32383/farmpol/144262
3. Kaufman MW, Faller NA, Lawrence KG. Low profile gastrostomy devices. Gastroenterol. Nurs. 1995;18(5):171-176. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001610-199509000-00004
4. Abdelhadi RA, Dekonenko C, Dorman RM, et al. A prospective, randomized cross-over trial of 2 low-profile gastrostomy buttons to determine family preference. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2020;70(3):386-388. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000002585
5. O’Dowd M, Given MF, Lee MJ. New approaches to percutaneous gastrostomy. Semin. Intervent. Radiol. 2004;21(3):191-197. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-860877
6. Hall JC. Learning about low-profile gastrostomy devices. Nursing. 1997;27(6):62-64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00152193-199706000-00028
7. https://avanosmedicaldevices.com/
8. Göthberg G, Björnsson 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;40:423-430.
9. Al-Balas H, Metwalli Z, Burney I, et al. Primary placement of low-profile or ‚button’ versus traditional balloon-retention radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters in adults: a retrospective review. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2023;10(1):e001118. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001118
10. Cortez AR, Warren PW, Goddard GR, et al. Primary placement of a low-profile gastrostomy button is safe and associated with improved outcomes in children. J. Surg. Res. 2020;249:156-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.11.027.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Filip Biernacki, Krystyna Majewska, Jacek Sobocki (Autor)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
