Case of the Month

PEG feeding tube resistant to removal – Case 302

A 49-year-old woman underwent a Roux-En-Y gastric bypass for obesity. This resulted in good weight loss, but unfortunately the patient later developed recurrent attacks of hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia. Other methods to try to control the reactive hypoglycaemia were attempted without success and so bypass reversal was considered. The patient then had a 16Fr percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube inserted laparoscopically. This helped to control the hypoglycaemia, enabling the surgeon to plan conversion to sleeve gastrectomy. However, in the interim, the patient was not able to tolerate the tube due to pain and asked for its removal after three months. The surgical registrar on call was tasked with removing the PEG tube, on a day-case list, under local anaesthesia. He attempted to do so, having checked that the tube rotated freely, but found the tube resistant to attempts to dislodge it. Rather than risk injuring the patient, he contacted the PEG team, who had not been involved with the placement of the tube. The PEG team explained that, with this particular device, it was necessary to deflate an internal balloon prior to device removal, a facet of the device that the registrar was unfamiliar with (Figure 1). The tube was subsequently removed with only minor discomfort to the patient. The case was discussed at a joint educational session between the PEG service and surgical team involved.

May 2025

Please consider the issues. Formulate your view. When you are ready to read the Expert Panel comments Press Here.

Reporter’s Comments:

PEG tubes have various securing mechanisms preventing inadvertent dislodgement. In this hospital, the majority of PEG tubes are placed in situ by a dedicated PEG service. However, in this case the tube had been placed by the upper GI/bariatric team as a surgical procedure. The registrar who was asked to remove the tube was not provided with information necessary for the safe conduct of the procedure and had no access to information about the device employed. In the event he made the sensible decision to desist from attempting removal against resistance and sought the advice of the PEG team.

CORESS comments:

This case has several learning points. The registrar knew his limitations and made a sensible decision not to persist with tube removal when he was unfamiliar with the equipment and the procedure. The supervising consultant should not have delegated an unfamiliar procedure to a trainee without ensuring either that he was either confident to undertake this or providing adequate supervision. A record describing the type of PEG and implications for removal should have been included in the patient’s notes, facilitating eventual removal.

If you wish to send comments in to us about the case, please email them to us through this link

All CORESS Reports can be found in the Resource Hub

MENU