Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension versus direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: patient-related outcomes and complications.
Giel J L van Neerven, Eline H T Gilissen, Roos Gielen, Arlinda Baars, Bianca M L Stelten, Hajo Flink, Lennard P L Gilissen
{"title":"Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension versus direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: patient-related outcomes and complications.","authors":"Giel J L van Neerven, Eline H T Gilissen, Roos Gielen, Arlinda Baars, Bianca M L Stelten, Hajo Flink, Lennard P L Gilissen","doi":"10.5946/ce.2025.401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (D-PEJ) are used for jejunal feeding or administration of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in patients with Parkinson's disease. PEG-J is currently preferred because it is technically less challenging to insert. However, comparative studies are scarce, and data on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study conducted at a referral hospital, clinical experience, adverse events (AEs), and PROMs associated with both techniques were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-three patients underwent PEG-J and/or D-PEJ placement between January 1, 2010, and July 1, 2022. Patients with PEG-J required significantly more re-endoscopies per tube-year than those with D-PEJ (0.63 [standard deviation, SD, 0.72] vs. 0.27 [SD 0.50]). A total of 76.8% of PEG-J patients underwent at least one re-endoscopy (range, 0-3.85 per year), primarily due to dislocated jejunal extensions (77.4%). Tube-related AEs (including dislocation, occlusion, perforation, and ulceration) occurred significantly more often after PEG-J insertion (76.7% vs. 25.9%). Forty-five patients (48%) completed the PROM questionnaire. No statistically significant differences were found in quality of life. However, D-PEJ patients reported significantly more tube-related pain (44.4% vs. 15.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>D-PEJ represents a viable alternative to PEG-J in experienced centers and should be considered when frequent complications with jejunal extensions occur.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"642-652"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13439301/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (D-PEJ) are used for jejunal feeding or administration of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in patients with Parkinson's disease. PEG-J is currently preferred because it is technically less challenging to insert. However, comparative studies are scarce, and data on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are limited.
Methods: In this retrospective study conducted at a referral hospital, clinical experience, adverse events (AEs), and PROMs associated with both techniques were evaluated.
Results: Ninety-three patients underwent PEG-J and/or D-PEJ placement between January 1, 2010, and July 1, 2022. Patients with PEG-J required significantly more re-endoscopies per tube-year than those with D-PEJ (0.63 [standard deviation, SD, 0.72] vs. 0.27 [SD 0.50]). A total of 76.8% of PEG-J patients underwent at least one re-endoscopy (range, 0-3.85 per year), primarily due to dislocated jejunal extensions (77.4%). Tube-related AEs (including dislocation, occlusion, perforation, and ulceration) occurred significantly more often after PEG-J insertion (76.7% vs. 25.9%). Forty-five patients (48%) completed the PROM questionnaire. No statistically significant differences were found in quality of life. However, D-PEJ patients reported significantly more tube-related pain (44.4% vs. 15.9%).
Conclusions: D-PEJ represents a viable alternative to PEG-J in experienced centers and should be considered when frequent complications with jejunal extensions occur.