OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare outcomes and complications in patients having undergone gastrostomy by surgical (SG), percutaneous endoscopic (PEG), or percutaneous radiological (PRG) procedure. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: University-based tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Of 82 patients who met inclusion criteria, 14 patients (median age, 40 years) received a surgical tube placement (SG), in 24 patients (median age, 55 years) a PEG procedure was performed, and in 44 patients (median age, 57 years) the tube was placed under fluoroscopic guidance (PRG). Indications for gastrostomy were similar in all groups, representing mainly cancer of the oropharyngeal, head and neck region (51 [61%]) as well as the upper gastrointestinal tract (6 [8%]), neurological disorders (15 [18%]), and others (10 [13%]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Catheter function rates, major and minor procedure-related complications, and survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Ten patients (71%) died in the SG group 7 to 855 days (median, 67 days) after the procedure, 7 patients (29%) died 5 to 263 days (median, 103 days) after PEG placement, and 30 patients (68%) died within 3 to 621 days (median, 112 days) after PRG, of their underlying disease or disease-related complications; 1 procedure-related death occurred 6 days after radiological tube placement. We observed a rate of minor complications of 43% (6 patients), 33% (8), and 36% (16) and a major complication rate of 14% (2 patients), 17% (4), and 11% (5) in the SG, PEG, and PRG groups, respectively. Tube function rates at 1 year were 67% (9 patients) and 68% (20) in the SG and PEG groups, respectively, and 10% lower (39) in the PRG group, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is no major difference between SG, PEG, and PRG concerning procedure-related complications. Tube function tends to be inferior after radiological tube placement.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare outcomes and complications in patients having undergone gastrostomy by surgical (SG), percutaneous endoscopic (PEG), or percutaneous radiological (PRG) procedure. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: University-based tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Of 82 patients who met inclusion criteria, 14 patients (median age, 40 years) received a surgical tube placement (SG), in 24 patients (median age, 55 years) a PEG procedure was performed, and in 44 patients (median age, 57 years) the tube was placed under fluoroscopic guidance (PRG). Indications for gastrostomy were similar in all groups, representing mainly cancer of the oropharyngeal, head and neck region (51 [61%]) as well as the upper gastrointestinal tract (6 [8%]), neurological disorders (15 [18%]), and others (10 [13%]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Catheter function rates, major and minor procedure-related complications, and survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Ten patients (71%) died in the SG group 7 to 855 days (median, 67 days) after the procedure, 7 patients (29%) died 5 to 263 days (median, 103 days) after PEG placement, and 30 patients (68%) died within 3 to 621 days (median, 112 days) after PRG, of their underlying disease or disease-related complications; 1 procedure-related death occurred 6 days after radiological tube placement. We observed a rate of minor complications of 43% (6 patients), 33% (8), and 36% (16) and a major complication rate of 14% (2 patients), 17% (4), and 11% (5) in the SG, PEG, and PRG groups, respectively. Tube function rates at 1 year were 67% (9 patients) and 68% (20) in the SG and PEG groups, respectively, and 10% lower (39) in the PRG group, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is no major difference between SG, PEG, and PRG concerning procedure-related complications. Tube function tends to be inferior after radiological tube placement.
Authors: Fatih Ermis; Melih Ozel; Kemal Oncu; Yusuf Yazgan; Levent Demirturk; Ahmet Kemal Gurbuz; Taner Akyol; Hasan Nazik Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Gerhard Aschl; Andreas Kirchgatterer; Stephan Allinger; Max Hinterreiter; Dietmar Hubner; Wolfgang Kranewitter; Bernhard Stadler; Ludwig Wimmer; Peter Knoflach Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2003-02-28 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: O Ruthmann; A Seitz; S Richter; G Marjanovic; M Olschewski; U T Hopt; A Fischer; H-J Schrag Journal: Chirurg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 0.955