 |
|
Outcomes of Surgical, Percutaneous Endoscopic, and Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomies
Enrico P. Cosentini, MD;
Thomas Sautner, MD;
Michael Gnant, MD;
Friedrich Winkelbauer, MD;
Bela Teleky, MD;
Raimund Jakesz, MD
Arch Surg. 1998;133:1076-1083.
Objectives To evaluate and compare outcomes and complications in patients having undergone gastrostomy by surgical (SG), percutaneous endoscopic (PEG), or percutaneous radiological (PRG) procedure.
Design Retrospective analysis.
Setting University-based tertiary care center.
Patients Of 82 patients who met inclusion criteria, 14 patients (median age, 40 years) received a surgical tube placement (SG), in 24 patients (median age, 55 years) a PEG procedure was performed, and in 44 patients (median age, 57 years) the tube was placed under fluoroscopic guidance (PRG). Indications for gastrostomy were similar in all groups, representing mainly cancer of the oropharyngeal, head and neck region (51 [61%]) as well as the upper gastrointestinal tract (6 [8%]), neurological disorders (15 [18%]), and others (10 [13%]).
Main Outcome Measures Catheter function rates, major and minor procedure-related complications, and survival.
Results Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Ten patients (71%) died in the SG group 7 to 855 days (median, 67 days) after the procedure, 7 patients (29%) died 5 to 263 days (median, 103 days) after PEG placement, and 30 patients (68%) died within 3 to 621 days (median, 112 days) after PRG, of their underlying disease or disease-related complications; 1 procedure-related death occurred 6 days after radiological tube placement. We observed a rate of minor complications of 43% (6 patients), 33% (8), and 36% (16) and a major complication rate of 14% (2 patients), 17% (4), and 11% (5) in the SG, PEG, and PRG groups, respectively. Tube function rates at 1 year were 67% (9 patients) and 68% (20) in the SG and PEG groups, respectively, and 10% lower (39) in the PRG group, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusions There is no major difference between SG, PEG, and PRG concerning procedure-related complications. Tube function tends to be inferior after radiological tube placement.
From the Departments of Surgery (Drs Cosentini, Sautner, Gnant, Teleky, and Jakesz) and Radiology (Dr Winkelbauer), University Clinic of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
DPEJ Tube Placement Prevents Aspiration Pneumonia in High-Risk Patients
Panagiotakis et al.
Nutr Clin Pract 2008;23:172-175.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
To the Editor:
Wolch
Nutr Clin Pract 2007;22:689-690.
FULL TEXT
Enteral Nutrition Support of Head and Neck Cancer Patients
Raykher et al.
Nutr Clin Pract 2007;22:68-73.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes: Comparison of Surgical, Endoscopic, and Laparoscopic Methods
Bankhead et al.
Nutr Clin Pract 2005;20:607-612.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Percutaneous Gastrostomy for Treating Dilatation of the Bypassed Stomach After Bariatric Surgery for Morbid Obesity
Nosher et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004;183:1431-1435.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Establishing radiological percutaneous gastrostomy with balloon-retained tubes as an alternative to endoscopic and surgical gastrostomy in patients with tumours of the head and neck or oesophagus
Dinkel et al.
Br. J. Radiol. 2002;75:371-377.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Direct Percutaneous Transperitoneal Duodenostomy: An Alternative Form of Enteral Feeding
Turner and Wittich
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001;176:159-160.
FULL TEXT
Radiologic Gastrostomy Placement: Pigtail- Versus Mushroom-Retained Catheters
Funaki et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2000;175:375-379.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
