B M Currie1, G I Getrajdman2, A M Covey2, W Alago2, J P Erinjeri2, M Maybody2, F E Boas3. 1. Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275, York avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400, Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. 2. Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275, York avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. 3. Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275, York avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: boasf@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the technical success and complication rates of push versus pull gastrostomy tubes in cancer patients, and to examine their dependence on operator experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 304 cancer patients (170 men, 134 women; mean age 60.3±12.6 [SD], range: 19-102 years) referred for primary gastrostomy tube placement, 88 (29%) of whom had a previously unsuccessful attempt at percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Analyzed variables included method of insertion (push versus pull), indication for gastrostomy, technical success, operator experience, and procedure-related complications within 30 days of placement. RESULTS: Gastrostomy tubes were placed for feeding in 189 patients and palliative decompression in 115 patients. Technical success was 91%: 78% after endoscopy had previously been unsuccessful and 97% when excluding failures associated with prior endoscopy. In the first 30 days, there were 29 minor complications (17.2%) associated with push gastrostomies, and only 8 minor complications (7.5%) with pull gastrostomies (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in major complications (push gastrostomy 5.3%, pull gastrostomy 5.6%). For decompressive gastrostomy tubes, the pull technique resulted in lower rates of both minor and major complications. There was no difference in complications or technical success rates for more versus less experienced operators. CONCLUSION: Pull gastrostomy tube placement had a lower rate of complications than push gastrostomy tube placement, especially when the indication was decompression. The technical success rate was high, even after a failed attempt at endoscopic placement. Both the rates of success and complications were independent of operator experience.
PURPOSE: To compare the technical success and complication rates of push versus pull gastrostomy tubes in cancerpatients, and to examine their dependence on operator experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 304 cancerpatients (170 men, 134 women; mean age 60.3±12.6 [SD], range: 19-102 years) referred for primary gastrostomy tube placement, 88 (29%) of whom had a previously unsuccessful attempt at percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Analyzed variables included method of insertion (push versus pull), indication for gastrostomy, technical success, operator experience, and procedure-related complications within 30 days of placement. RESULTS:Gastrostomy tubes were placed for feeding in 189 patients and palliative decompression in 115 patients. Technical success was 91%: 78% after endoscopy had previously been unsuccessful and 97% when excluding failures associated with prior endoscopy. In the first 30 days, there were 29 minor complications (17.2%) associated with push gastrostomies, and only 8 minor complications (7.5%) with pull gastrostomies (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in major complications (push gastrostomy 5.3%, pull gastrostomy 5.6%). For decompressive gastrostomy tubes, the pull technique resulted in lower rates of both minor and major complications. There was no difference in complications or technical success rates for more versus less experienced operators. CONCLUSION: Pull gastrostomy tube placement had a lower rate of complications than push gastrostomy tube placement, especially when the indication was decompression. The technical success rate was high, even after a failed attempt at endoscopic placement. Both the rates of success and complications were independent of operator experience.
Authors: Anand Rajan; Peerapol Wangrattanapranee; Jonathan Kessler; Trilokesh Dey Kidambi; James H Tabibian Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-04-27