Skip to main content

Analysis of Failed Polyurethane Gastrostomy Devices and Comparison with Samples Incubated In Vitro

  • Conference paper
World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2006

Part of the book series: IFMBE Proceedings ((IFMBE,volume 14))

  • 44 Accesses

Abstract

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) devices provide a route for nourishment to those unable to swallow. The disintegration and discoloration of a type of polyurethane PEG device was evaluated. Five ex vivo samples were obtained and, where sufficient material remained, analyzed by nano-indentation, Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The ex vivo samples showed discoloration, pitting and environmental stress cracking (ESC). A group of unused PEG devices were exposed to a gastric acid and pepsinogen formulation at 37°C for up to six weeks. An additional cohort was investigated for fungal colonization by incubating a group in Sabourard’s broth, and another group in Ensure Feed and Sabourard’s broth. Both groups were incubated with a Candida culture preparation at 37°C for up to six weeks. The samples incubated in Candida in broth only, or in Candida in feed and broth, hardened. In contrast, the samples incubated in the gastric acid formulation tended to soften. Samples that were incubated with Candida in feed and broth were discolored, more often than those exposed to Candida in broth only. Candida was shown to grow on all PEG samples exposed to it. Examination under SEM showed pit formation after exposure to Candida but no ESC was observed. In some, but not all, of the samples incubated in the gastric acid and pepsinogen formulation, ESC was seen. However, no discoloration took place in the samples incubated in the gastric acid and pepsinogen formulation. It is likely that the disintegration of the PEG devices in vivo is a multi-faceted problem, where the synergistic effects of acid, enzymes and micro-organisms all play a role in the detriment of the material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gauderer MWL. (2002) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and the evolution of contemporary long-term enteral access. Clin. Nutrition 21:103–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sartori S, Trevisani L, Nielsen I et al. (2003) Longevity of silicone and polyurethane catheters in long-term enteral feeding via PEG. Alimentary Pharmacology Therapeutics 17:853–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blacka J, Donoghue J, Sutherland M et al. (2004) Dwell time and functional failure in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes: a prospective randomizeed-controlled comparison between silicon polymer and polyurethane percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. Alimentary Pharmacol. Therapeutics 20:875–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Den Hazel SJ, Mulder CJJ, Den Hartog G et al. (2000) A randomized trial of polyurethane and silicone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy catheters. Alimentary Pharmacology Therapeutics 14:1273–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gottlieb K, Iber F, Livak A et al. (1994) Oral Candida colonizes the stomach and gastrostomy feeding tubes. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 18:264–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu H, Obeng Y, Richardson KA. (2002) Applicability of dynamic mechanical analysis for CMP polyurethane pad studies. Materials Characterization 49:177–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin DJ, Poole Warren LA, Gunatillake PA et al. (2001) New methods for the assessment of in vitro and in vivo stress cracking in biomedical polyurethanes. Biomaterials 22:973–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dautle MP, Wilkinson TR, Gauderer MWL. (2003) Isolation and identification of biofilm microorganisms from silicone gastrostomy devices. J. Pediatric Surg. 38:216–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roorda AK, Rider DL, Rider JA et al. (2005) Do pH and temperature play a role in gastrostomy tube deterioration? J Parenter Enteral Nutr 29:388–391

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. J. Joyce .

Editor information

R. Magjarevic J. H. Nagel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering

About this paper

Cite this paper

Joyce, T.J. (2007). Analysis of Failed Polyurethane Gastrostomy Devices and Comparison with Samples Incubated In Vitro. In: Magjarevic, R., Nagel, J.H. (eds) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2006. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 14. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36841-0_822

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36841-0_822

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36839-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36841-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics