Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients.
J Laryngol Otol. 2006 Jun; 120(6):463-6.JL

Abstract

A gastrostomy feeding tube has become the most acceptable method for long-term feeding support in patients with head and neck cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the complications of percutaneous endoscopically inserted gastrostomy (PEG) tubes, radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) tubes and surgically inserted gastrostomy (open/laparoscopic) (SUR) tubes in head and neck cancer patients and also to compare the mortality rates of these patients. Seventy-eight head and neck cancer patients underwent gastrostomy tube insertion (40 PEG, 28 RIG and 10 SUR) during the period February 2002 to February 2005. There were no significant demographic differences between the three groups. Thirty-six patients (46 per cent) developed complications, 32 minor and four major. All three groups were similar in their rate of minor complications, with the dislodgement and blockage rate being lowest in the PEG group (p > 0.05). The mortality rate was 4 per cent within 30 days of gastrostomy tube insertion. There were no deaths in the PEG group, two deaths in the RIG group and one in the SUR group. The PEG tube was considered superior to the RIG and SUR gastrostomy tubes, had fewer complications and was safer. Thus, PEG tube insertion is our first choice for head and neck cancer patients.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Rustom IK
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK. isamrustom@hotmail.com
Jebreel A
No affiliation info available
Tayyab M
No affiliation info available
England RJ
No affiliation info available
Stafford ND
No affiliation info available

MeSH

AgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellEnteral NutritionFemaleGastroscopyGastrostomyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalMaleMiddle AgedPeritonitisPneumoniaPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgical Wound InfectionTongue Neoplasms

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16772054

Clinical Trial Links

Outpatient Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Patients With Head and Neck Tumors

Citation

Rustom, I K., et al. "Percutaneous Endoscopic, Radiological and Surgical Gastrostomy Tubes: a Comparison Study in Head and Neck Cancer Patients." The Journal of Laryngology and Otology, vol. 120, no. 6, 2006, pp. 463-6.
Rustom IK, Jebreel A, Tayyab M, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients. J Laryngol Otol. 2006;120(6):463-6.
Rustom, I. K., Jebreel, A., Tayyab, M., England, R. J., & Stafford, N. D. (2006). Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 120(6), 463-6.
Rustom IK, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic, Radiological and Surgical Gastrostomy Tubes: a Comparison Study in Head and Neck Cancer Patients. J Laryngol Otol. 2006;120(6):463-6. PubMed PMID: 16772054.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients. AU - Rustom,I K, AU - Jebreel,A, AU - Tayyab,M, AU - England,R J A, AU - Stafford,N D, PY - 2005/11/25/accepted PY - 2006/6/15/pubmed PY - 2006/10/13/medline PY - 2006/6/15/entrez SP - 463 EP - 6 JF - The Journal of laryngology and otology JO - J Laryngol Otol VL - 120 IS - 6 N2 - A gastrostomy feeding tube has become the most acceptable method for long-term feeding support in patients with head and neck cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the complications of percutaneous endoscopically inserted gastrostomy (PEG) tubes, radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) tubes and surgically inserted gastrostomy (open/laparoscopic) (SUR) tubes in head and neck cancer patients and also to compare the mortality rates of these patients. Seventy-eight head and neck cancer patients underwent gastrostomy tube insertion (40 PEG, 28 RIG and 10 SUR) during the period February 2002 to February 2005. There were no significant demographic differences between the three groups. Thirty-six patients (46 per cent) developed complications, 32 minor and four major. All three groups were similar in their rate of minor complications, with the dislodgement and blockage rate being lowest in the PEG group (p > 0.05). The mortality rate was 4 per cent within 30 days of gastrostomy tube insertion. There were no deaths in the PEG group, two deaths in the RIG group and one in the SUR group. The PEG tube was considered superior to the RIG and SUR gastrostomy tubes, had fewer complications and was safer. Thus, PEG tube insertion is our first choice for head and neck cancer patients. SN - 0022-2151 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16772054/Percutaneous_endoscopic_radiological_and_surgical_gastrostomy_tubes:_a_comparison_study_in_head_and_neck_cancer_patients_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -