Literature DB >> 2122027

Percutaneous endoscopic vs surgical gastrostomy.

M Jones1, S A Santanello, R E Falcone.   

Abstract

The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has replaced the surgical gastrostomy (GT) on our service. We reviewed our data in an effort to determine relative efficacy and cost effectiveness of the two techniques. Thirty-five patients with PEGs were matched for age and diagnosis with 35 patients with GTs done by the same surgical service. PEGs were done in the endoscopy suite; GTs were done in the operating room: both under local anesthesia. Patients in PEG and GT groups were comparable in sex, diagnosis, and age. The PEG took less time to insert (15.3 vs 25.4 min, p less than 0.001). Major postoperative morbidity was similar with 10 systemic complications for each group and 11 deaths for the PEG vs 12 deaths for the GT group (at 90 days). Minor morbidity was higher for the PEG group with nine complications vs 1. Estimated cost for PEG was half the cost of GT. Hospital stay for the two groups was similar (36 vs 45 days, p greater than 0.1), but postop stay for the PEG group tended to be shorter (17 vs 24 days, p less than 0.08). The PEG is faster and cheaper to insert than the GT, however major morbidity and mortality are the same.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2122027     DOI: 10.1177/0148607190014005533

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr        ISSN: 0148-6071            Impact factor:   4.016


  12 in total

1.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  I Forgacs; A Macpherson; C Tibbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-30

2.  Complication rate lower after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy than after surgical gastrostomy: a prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  M Ljungdahl; M Sundbom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-24       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  J F Fielding
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 1.568

5.  Randomised comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia.

Authors:  R H Park; M C Allison; J Lang; E Spence; A J Morris; B J Danesh; R I Russell; P R Mills
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-30

6.  Prevention of aspiration pneumonia during long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: might cisapride play any role? An open pilot study.

Authors:  S Sartori; L Trevisani; D Tassinari; I Nielsen; G Gilli; D Donati; P Malacarne
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Enteral long-term nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in 210 patients: a four-year prospective study.

Authors:  C Löser; S Wolters; U R Fölsch
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  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

9.  A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke.

Authors:  B Norton; M Homer-Ward; M T Donnelly; R G Long; G K Holmes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-06

10.  Peritonitis from peg tube insertion in surgical intensive care unit patients: identification of risk factors and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Rachit D Shah; Nabil Tariq; Charles Shanley; James Robbins; Randy Janczyk
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-05-09       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.