Literature DB >> 14603043

'Push' versus 'pull' percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients with advanced head and neck cancer.

Anthony T Tucker1, Christine G Gourin, Mark D Ghegan, Edward S Porubsky, Robert G Martindale, David J Terris.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG) placement by means of the "pull" method has been reported to result in a significantly higher complication rate when compared with "push" PEG placement. These findings have led to a renewed interest in the push, or Russell introducer, method of PEG placement at the authors' institution when PEG is required before definitive treatment of advanced head and neck cancer. The authors sought to determine whether the push method of PEG placement is associated with a lower incidence of complications in this patient population. STUDY
DESIGN: Nonrandomized, retrospective patient analysis.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients presenting to the Medical College of Georgia (Augusta, GA) who received a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck between 1999 to 2001 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who required PEG placement as part of their treatment comprised the study population.
RESULTS: The push PEG technique was used in 29 patients, and the pull technique was used in 50 patients. There was a statistically significant difference in the complication rate between the two techniques. Patients who underwent placement by means of the pull technique had an overall complication rate of 30% (15 of 50) versus a 0% (0 of 29) complication rate in patients undergoing the push technique (P =.0006, Fisher's Exact test).
CONCLUSION: The push PEG technique appears to have a significantly lower risk of complications compared with the pull technique in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. The authors recommend considering the use of the push method when PEG placement is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14603043     DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200311000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  22 in total

1.  SLiC technique. A novel approach to percutaneous gastrostomy.

Authors:  A Sabnis; R Liu; B Chand; J Ponsky
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Reconstruction of an abdominal wall defect following wide excision of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma at the percutaneous gastrostomy site in a head and neck cancer patient.

Authors:  Chenicheri Balakrishnan; Kristopher B Sugg; Christopher Vashi
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2006

3.  Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Felipe A Retes; Fabio S Kawaguti; Marcelo S de Lima; Bruno da Costa Martins; Ricardo S Uemura; Gustavo A de Paulo; Caterina Mp Pennacchi; Carla Gusmon; Adriana Vs Ribeiro; Elisa R Baba; Sebastian N Geiger; Mauricio P Sorbello; Marco A Kulcsar; Ulysses Ribeiro; Fauze Maluf-Filho
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances.

Authors:  Claudio A R Gomes; Régis B Andriolo; Cathy Bennett; Suzana A S Lustosa; Delcio Matos; Daniel R Waisberg; Jaques Waisberg
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-22

5.  Comparison of Introducer Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Open Gastrostomy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Prasit Mahawongkajit; Ajjana Techagumpuch; Palin Limpavitayaporn; Amonpon Kanlerd; Ekkapak Sriussadaporn; Jatupong Juntong; Assanee Tongyoo; Chatchai Mingmalairak
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 3.438

6.  Percutaneous laparoscopic assisted gastrostomy (PLAG)--a new technique for cases of pharyngoesophageal obstruction.

Authors:  Ulrich Bolder; Marcus N Scherer; Thorsten Schmidt; Matthias Hornung; Hans-Jürgen Schlitt; Peter Vogel
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2010-03-07       Impact factor: 3.445

7.  Comparison of 231 patients receiving either "pull-through" or "push" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  Gernot Köhler; Veronika Kalcher; Oliver O Koch; Ruzica-R Luketina; Klaus Emmanuel; Georg Spaun
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion in cancer patients: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Hala Mansoor; Muhammad Adnan Masood; Muhammed Aasim Yusuf
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2014-12

9.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: predictors of 30-day complications, 30-day mortality, and overall mortality.

Authors:  David M Richards; Rajasekhar Tanikella; Gaurav Arora; Sushovan Guha; Alexander A Dekovich
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 435 cases.

Authors:  Paulo M O Campoli; Daniela M M Cardoso; Marília D Turchi; Flávio H Ejima; Orlando M Mota
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.