Moises I Nevah1, Jennifer R Lamberth1, Alexander A Dekovich2. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (H&NCa) patients have an increased risk of malnutrition and dysphagia because of their malignancy and the adverse events of therapy. Most of these patients require gastrostomies. Four percent to 7% of H&NCa patients are unable to undergo per oral percutaneous gastrostomies. Transnasal endoscopy is an option for gastrostomy placement in selected patients. OBJECTIVE: Clinical, epidemiologic characteristics and outcomes of transnasal PEG (t-PEG) placement. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent t-PEG placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Epidemiology, adverse events, and outcomes of t-PEG placement. RESULTS: Sixteen patients underwent t-PEG placement from January 2010 to May 2013. All patients had H&NCa and 56.3% had metastasis. Indications for the transnasal approach were airway compromise, malignant oropharyngeal obstruction, and trismus, among others. All procedures were successful using a 20F gastrostomy tube, push technique, anesthesiologist-guided propofol sedation, and/or nasotracheal intubation. Of all patients, 68.8% were white and 68.8% were men. Mean age was 54 years, and mean body mass index was 20.87. Two patients had a total of 2 adverse events: poor wound healing and wound site infection. Of all patients, 18.75% had leukopenia, 6.25% neutropenia, and 50% lymphopenia. Mean white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, and absolute lymphocyte count were 8.6 × 10(9)/L, 6.57 × 10(9)/L, and .93 × 10(9)/L, respectively. Eleven patients were alive, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 3 had died at the time of review. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective analysis, small cohort, patient selection bias. CONCLUSION: t-PEG placement is a viable and safe option for H&NCa patients when the standard endoscopic approach is not feasible.
BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (H&NCa) patients have an increased risk of malnutrition and dysphagia because of their malignancy and the adverse events of therapy. Most of these patients require gastrostomies. Four percent to 7% of H&NCapatients are unable to undergo per oral percutaneous gastrostomies. Transnasal endoscopy is an option for gastrostomy placement in selected patients. OBJECTIVE: Clinical, epidemiologic characteristics and outcomes of transnasal PEG (t-PEG) placement. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent t-PEG placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Epidemiology, adverse events, and outcomes of t-PEG placement. RESULTS: Sixteen patients underwent t-PEG placement from January 2010 to May 2013. All patients had H&NCa and 56.3% had metastasis. Indications for the transnasal approach were airway compromise, malignant oropharyngeal obstruction, and trismus, among others. All procedures were successful using a 20F gastrostomy tube, push technique, anesthesiologist-guided propofol sedation, and/or nasotracheal intubation. Of all patients, 68.8% were white and 68.8% were men. Mean age was 54 years, and mean body mass index was 20.87. Two patients had a total of 2 adverse events: poor wound healing and wound site infection. Of all patients, 18.75% had leukopenia, 6.25% neutropenia, and 50% lymphopenia. Mean white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, and absolute lymphocyte count were 8.6 × 10(9)/L, 6.57 × 10(9)/L, and .93 × 10(9)/L, respectively. Eleven patients were alive, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 3 had died at the time of review. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective analysis, small cohort, patient selection bias. CONCLUSION:t-PEG placement is a viable and safe option for H&NCapatients when the standard endoscopic approach is not feasible.
Authors: Ata A Rahnemai-Azar; Amir A Rahnemaiazar; Rozhin Naghshizadian; Amparo Kurtz; Daniel T Farkas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: C Tudor; C Branescu; C Savlovschi; A El-Khatib; H Pantu; A Nica; A M Dascalu; B Masoumeh; A S Tudor; S M Oprescu; D Serban Journal: J Med Life Date: 2016 Oct-Dec
Authors: Louise Deluiz Verdolin Di Palma; Gustavo Francisco de Souza E Mello; Cindy Lis Granados; Ricardo Dardengo Glória; Caroline Sauter Dalbem; Rolantre Lopes da Cruz; Ana Carolina Maron Ayres; Renata Sofia Camara Lisboa; Alexandre Dias Pelosi; Maria Aparecida Ferreira; Gilberto Reynaldo Mansur; Simone Guaraldi da Silva; Theresa Christina Damian Ribeiro; Fernando Luiz Dias Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-07-06