Gastrostomy tube placement outcomes: Comparison of surgical, endoscopic, and laparoscopic methods

Robin Rago Bankhead, Carol A. Fisher, Rolando Rolandelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)607-612
Number of pages6
JournalNutrition in Clinical Practice
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Gastrostomy
Enteral Nutrition
Operating Rooms
Maintenance
Cellulitis
Ileus
Mechanical Ventilators
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Deglutition Disorders
Respiratory Insufficiency
Nausea
Vomiting
Drainage
Diarrhea

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

@article{cf70afde4b794657ab4bf44d50c8a457,
title = "Gastrostomy tube placement outcomes: Comparison of surgical, endoscopic, and laparoscopic methods",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Bankhead, {Robin Rago} and Fisher, {Carol A.} and Rolando Rolandelli",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0115426505020006607",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "607--612",
journal = "Nutrition in Clinical Practice",
issn = "0884-5336",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "6",

}

Gastrostomy tube placement outcomes : Comparison of surgical, endoscopic, and laparoscopic methods. / Bankhead, Robin Rago; Fisher, Carol A.; Rolandelli, Rolando.

In: Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 20, No. 6, 01.01.2005, p. 607-612.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gastrostomy tube placement outcomes

T2 - Comparison of surgical, endoscopic, and laparoscopic methods

AU - Bankhead, Robin Rago

AU - Fisher, Carol A.

AU - Rolandelli, Rolando

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=29044440968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=29044440968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0115426505020006607

DO - 10.1177/0115426505020006607

M3 - Article

C2 - 16306297

AN - SCOPUS:29044440968

VL - 20

SP - 607

EP - 612

JO - Nutrition in Clinical Practice

JF - Nutrition in Clinical Practice

SN - 0884-5336

IS - 6

ER -