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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Grant JP. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Stamm gastrostomy. Ann Surg . 1988 ;207:598– 603.

Murayama KM, Johnson TJ, Thompson JS. Laparoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy are safe and effective for obtaining enteral access. Am J Surg . 1996;172:591– 595.

Lowe JB, Page CP, Schwesinger WH, Gaskill HV, Stauffer JS. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in a surgical training program. Am J Surg . 1997 ;174:624– 628.

Peitgen K, von Ostau C, Walz MK. Laparoscopic gastrostomy: results of 121 patients over 7 years. Surg Laparosc Endosc . 2001 ;11:76– 82.

Light VL, Slezak FA, Porter JA, Gerson LW, McCord G. Predictive factors for early mortality after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc . 1995 ;42:330– 335.

Cosentini EP, Sautner T, Gnant M, Winkelbauer F, Teleky B, Jakesz R. Outcomes of surgical, percutaneous endoscopic and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomies. Arch Surg . 1998 ;133:1076– 1083.

Lydiatt DD, Murayama KM, Hollins RR, Thompson JS. Laparoscopic gastrostomy versus open gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients. Laryngoscope . 1996 ;106:407– 410.