BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer patients frequently require gastrostomy feeding. Different insertion techniques have been described. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic and radiological gastrostomies in patients treated in a regional head and neck cancer unit. METHODS: The records of patients who received either percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) between August 1997 and February 2001 were reviewed retrospectively. Documented complications (leak, infection, nausea and vomiting, ileus, bleeding, peritonitis) were recorded, compared and evaluated. RESULTS: There were 74 patients (56 PEG, 18 PRG), most with stage III and IV head and neck malignancy. There was a significantly lower incidence of complications in PEG than PRG (11% vs 44%, P = 0.004). There was a delay of feeding due to tube placement in 4% of PEG and 22% of PRG (P < 0.025). Major complications occurred in 3.6% and 5.6% of PEG and PRG, respectively. Generally the complication rate for either form of gastrostomy was comparable with other studies. No procedure-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Selection bias, technique and tube type appeared to influence the complication rate in the present review. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy will remain the authors' preferred method while PRG will be reserved for those cases for whom endoscopic placement is deemed to be impractical.
BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancerpatients frequently require gastrostomy feeding. Different insertion techniques have been described. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic and radiological gastrostomies in patients treated in a regional head and neck cancer unit. METHODS: The records of patients who received either percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) between August 1997 and February 2001 were reviewed retrospectively. Documented complications (leak, infection, nausea and vomiting, ileus, bleeding, peritonitis) were recorded, compared and evaluated. RESULTS: There were 74 patients (56 PEG, 18 PRG), most with stage III and IV head and neck malignancy. There was a significantly lower incidence of complications in PEG than PRG (11% vs 44%, P = 0.004). There was a delay of feeding due to tube placement in 4% of PEG and 22% of PRG (P < 0.025). Major complications occurred in 3.6% and 5.6% of PEG and PRG, respectively. Generally the complication rate for either form of gastrostomy was comparable with other studies. No procedure-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Selection bias, technique and tube type appeared to influence the complication rate in the present review. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy will remain the authors' preferred method while PRG will be reserved for those cases for whom endoscopic placement is deemed to be impractical.
Authors: Michael Epstein; David A Johnson; Robert Hawes; Nathan Schmulewitz; Arvydas D Vanagunas; E Roderich Gossen; Weining Z Robieson; Susan Eaton; Jordan Dubow; Krai Chatamra; Janet Benesh Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Joo Hyun Lim; Seung Ho Choi; Changhyun Lee; Ji Yeon Seo; Hae Yeon Kang; Jong In Yang; Su Jin Chung; Joo Sung Kim Journal: Intest Res Date: 2016-10-17