PURPOSE: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is not possible or fails in some patients. We aimed to categorize the reasons for PEG failure, to study the success of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) in these patients, and to highlight the associated technical difficulties and complications. METHODS: Forty-two patients (28 men, 14 women; mean age 60 years, range 18-93 years) in whom PEG failed or was not possible, underwent PRG. PEG failure or unsuitability was due to upper gastrointestinal tract obstruction or other pathology precluding PEG in 15 of the 42 patients, suboptimal transillumination in 22 of 42 patients, and advanced cardiorespiratory decompensation precluding endoscopy in five of 42 patients. T-fastener gastropexy was used in all patients and 14-18 Fr catheters were inserted. RESULTS: PRG was successful in 41 of 42 patients (98%). CT guidance was required in four patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. PRG failed in one patient despite CT guidance. In the 16 patients with high subcostal stomachs who failed PEG because of inadequate transillumination, intercostal tube placement was required in three and cephalad angulation under the costal margin in six patients. Major complications included inadvertent placement of the tube in the peritoneal cavity. There was one case of hemorrhage at the gastrostomy site requiring transfusion and one case of superficial gastrostomy site infection requiring tube removal. Minor complications included superficial wound infection in six patients, successfully treated with routine wound toilette. CONCLUSION: We conclude that PRG is a safe, well-tolerated and successful method of gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy insertion in the technically difficult group of patients who have undergone an unsuccessful PEG. In many such cases optimal clinical evaluation will suggest primary referral for PRG as the preferred option.
PURPOSE: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is not possible or fails in some patients. We aimed to categorize the reasons for PEGfailure, to study the success of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) in these patients, and to highlight the associated technical difficulties and complications. METHODS: Forty-two patients (28 men, 14 women; mean age 60 years, range 18-93 years) in whom PEG failed or was not possible, underwent PRG. PEGfailure or unsuitability was due to upper gastrointestinal tract obstruction or other pathology precluding PEG in 15 of the 42 patients, suboptimal transillumination in 22 of 42 patients, and advanced cardiorespiratory decompensation precluding endoscopy in five of 42 patients. T-fastener gastropexy was used in all patients and 14-18 Fr catheters were inserted. RESULTS: PRG was successful in 41 of 42 patients (98%). CT guidance was required in four patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. PRG failed in one patient despite CT guidance. In the 16 patients with high subcostal stomachs who failed PEG because of inadequate transillumination, intercostal tube placement was required in three and cephalad angulation under the costal margin in six patients. Major complications included inadvertent placement of the tube in the peritoneal cavity. There was one case of hemorrhage at the gastrostomy site requiring transfusion and one case of superficial gastrostomy site infection requiring tube removal. Minor complications included superficial wound infection in six patients, successfully treated with routine wound toilette. CONCLUSION: We conclude that PRG is a safe, well-tolerated and successful method of gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy insertion in the technically difficult group of patients who have undergone an unsuccessful PEG. In many such cases optimal clinical evaluation will suggest primary referral for PRG as the preferred option.