This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bankhead, R. R. Articles by Rolandelli, R. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bankhead, R. R. Articles by Rolandelli, R. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes: Comparison of Surgical, Endoscopic, and Laparoscopic Methods

Robin Rago Bankhead, CRNP, MS, CNSN^*
Carol A. Fisher, BA
Rolando H. Rolandelli, MD, FACS

^* Department of Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Department of Surgery, Morristown Memorial Hospital, Morristown, New Jersey

Correspondence: Correspondence: Robin Rago Bankhead, CRNP, MS, CNSN, Department of Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Broad and Ontario Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19140. Electronic mail may be sent to robin.bankhead{at}tuhs.temple.edu.

Background: Advances in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic (LAP) techniques now allow for less invasive placement of gastrostomy tubes. This study compared morbidities and feeding outcomes of these procedures with standard surgical (OPEN) insertion. Methods: Gastrostomy tubes placed in the operating room by the PEG, LAP, and OPEN methods were compared for insertion times, tube insertion and maintenance complications, enteral feeding complications, and feeding start days. Patients with concomitant intra-abdominal procedures were excluded. Patients were followed for 6 days after tube placement. Results: A total of 91 catheters (PEG = 23, LAP = 39, OPEN = 29) were inserted in the operating room for indications of ventilator-dependent respiratory failure (45), dysphagia (30), head and neck cancer (9), and decreased mental status (7). No patients were fed on the day of the procedure. Insertion times were significantly longer (p < .05) in the OPEN technique (68 minutes) vs LAP (48 minutes) and PEG (30 minutes). Insertion complications occurred in the LAP and PEG cohorts (3 failed LAP, 1 failed PEG), and maintenance complications were higher in the LAP group, including 1 episode each of cellulitis, bleeding, and serous drainage. Twenty enteral feeding complications in 17 patients occurred in all groups (9 in LAP vs 6 in PEG and 5 in OPEN), and included emesis (6), high residual (5), diarrhea (3), ileus (3), nausea (2), and pain after feeding (1). Overall complications were significantly lower in the PEG (7) and OPEN (5) groups compared with the LAP group (15). Feeding start day was significantly delayed in the OPEN technique (2.1 days vs 1.7 in PEG and 1.5 in LAP); however, no difference was found in days to goal among groups (4.4–4.8 days). Conclusions: PEG should be the procedure of choice for placement of gastrostomy tubes. If PEG is contraindicated, then OPEN technique may be best due to fewer complications, although insertion time is longer than the LAP technique.

Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 20, No. 6, 607-612 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0115426505020006607


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. F. Winkler Improving Safety and Reducing Harm Associated With Specialized Nutrition Support Nutr Clin Pract, December 1, 2005; 20(6): 595 - 596. [Full Text] [PDF]