OBJECTIVE: To review our experience with pharyngostomy tubes used to manage complications following foregut surgery and to discuss technical aspects of insertion. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical pharyngostomy tubes are percutaneously placed through the hypopharynx and directed into the stomach or small bowel. Historically, these tubes were placed during resection of head and neck cancer for postoperative nutrition. The technique may also be used to manage a variety of complications following esophagectomy or gastric surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review identified all patients who underwent pharyngostomy tube placement at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from 1995 to 2007. Indications, procedure-related complications, and duration of tube placement were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were identified. Indications for tube placement were: access for enteral nutrition (n = 18), drainage of mediastinal abscess (n = 4), gastric decompression (n = 13), and other (n = 3). Procedure-related complications included: cellulitis (n = 1), esophagitis (n = 1), aspiration pneumonia (n = 1), and tube migration (n = 9). Duration of tube placement was 51 days (range 1-279). No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngostomy tubes may be useful in the management of complications following esophageal or gastric surgery. They are more comfortable than nasogastric tubes and may be kept in place for several months if necessary. Bleeding or other major complications have not occurred in our experience.
OBJECTIVE: To review our experience with pharyngostomy tubes used to manage complications following foregut surgery and to discuss technical aspects of insertion. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical pharyngostomy tubes are percutaneously placed through the hypopharynx and directed into the stomach or small bowel. Historically, these tubes were placed during resection of head and neck cancer for postoperative nutrition. The technique may also be used to manage a variety of complications following esophagectomy or gastric surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review identified all patients who underwent pharyngostomy tube placement at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from 1995 to 2007. Indications, procedure-related complications, and duration of tube placement were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were identified. Indications for tube placement were: access for enteral nutrition (n = 18), drainage of mediastinal abscess (n = 4), gastric decompression (n = 13), and other (n = 3). Procedure-related complications included: cellulitis (n = 1), esophagitis (n = 1), aspiration pneumonia (n = 1), and tube migration (n = 9). Duration of tube placement was 51 days (range 1-279). No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngostomy tubes may be useful in the management of complications following esophageal or gastric surgery. They are more comfortable than nasogastric tubes and may be kept in place for several months if necessary. Bleeding or other major complications have not occurred in our experience.