Literature DB >> 1728885

Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients.

S E Gibson1, B L Wenig, J L Watkins.   

Abstract

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has been shown to benefit patients with resectable carcinoma of the head and neck. In order to determine whether patients with existing tumor or postresection anatomic changes of the upper respiratory tract can undergo this procedure with an acceptably low complication rate, 349 patients with attempted PEG were studied. The PEG procedure was successful in 114 of 122 carcinoma patients, as compared to 220 of 227 patients in a control group (patients with neurologic disease). Intraoperative complications preventing PEG placement included pharyngeal or esophageal obstruction, inadequate transillumination of the abdominal wall, and respiratory distress and occurred in 7% of carcinoma patients and 3% of controls. The incidence of airway obstruction during endoscopy was equal between groups (1%). Postoperative complications related to the gastrostomy tube were more frequent in the non-head and neck cancer group (14% versus 5%). Younger age, fewer concomitant medical problems, and better nutritional status may account for this difference. These findings suggest that preoperative, postoperative, and unresectable head and neck cancer patients are appropriate candidates for PEG, and postgastrostomy performance appears superior to that in other patient populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1728885     DOI: 10.1177/000348949210100113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol        ISSN: 0003-4894            Impact factor:   1.547


  14 in total

1.  Acute hemorrhage following transhepatic PEG tube placement.

Authors:  Travis F Wiggins; R Kaplan; M H DeLegge
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Long-term outcomes of patients receiving percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes.

Authors:  L Rabeneck; N P Wray; N J Petersen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Tips and tricks for deep jejunal enteral access: modifying techniques to maximize success.

Authors:  Lena B Palmer; Stephen A McClave; Matthew L Bechtold; Douglas L Nguyen; Robert G Martindale; David C Evans
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2014-10

4.  Cost analysis of long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients in an Italian health district.

Authors:  S Sartori; L Trevisani; D Tassinari; G Gilli; I Nielsen; A Maestri; V Abbasciano
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 5.  Abdominal wall metastasis following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  G Becker; C F Hess; K E Grund; W Hoffmann; M Bamberg
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Combined laparoscopic-endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  K G Sylvester; D L Paskin; A L Schuricht
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Risk of bleeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

Authors:  Dushyant Singh; Alexandra S Laya; Omkar U Vaidya; Syed A Ahmed; Aaron J Bonham; Wendell K Clarkston
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 8.  Complications of and controversies associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: report of a case and literature review.

Authors:  Jonathan Z Potack; Sita Chokhavatia
Journal:  Medscape J Med       Date:  2008-06-17

9.  Propofol-Based Sedation Does Not Increase Rate of Complication during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Procedure.

Authors:  Somchai Amornyotin; Wiyada Chalayonnavin; Siriporn Kongphlay
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 2.260

10.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Initial placement by single endoscopic technique and long-term follow-up.

Authors:  J P Grant
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.