Copyright
©2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 7, 2009; 15(25): 3148-3152
Published online Jul 7, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.3148
Published online Jul 7, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.3148
No. of case | Sex/age (yr) | PEG-VP shunt interval (d) | Position of abdominal shunt catheter | DM | Complication | Follow-up (mo) | Outcome |
1 | F/67 | 409 | Right | - | Wound infection | 7 | Doing well |
2 | M/57 | 65 | Right | + | - | 15 | Doing well |
3 | M/57 | 256 | Left | + | - | 8 | PEG change due to self-removal |
4 | F/62 | 831 | Right | - | - | 6 | PEG change due to self-removal |
5 | F/67 | 274 | Right | - | - | 5 | Doing well |
6 | F/36 | 259 | Right | - | - | 1 | Doing well |
7 | F/42 | 67 | Left | - | - | 3 | PEG removal |
- Citation: Kim JS, Park YW, Kim HK, Cho YS, Kim SS, Youn NR, Chae HS. Is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement safe in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunts? World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(25): 3148-3152
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v15/i25/3148.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.3148