Seventy-one patients have undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) on our otolaryngology service. Most commonly, these were neurologically-impaired (63%) or head and neck cancer (31 %) patients. The PEG procedures were done, in almost all instances, in the operating room in conjunction with other indicated ORL—HNS procedures such as tracheotomy (71%) or with endoscopy or resection for head and neck cancer. The success rate in placement of the gastrostomy was 98%. There was one major complication, namely, seeding of the gastrostomy site with squamous cell carcinoma from a hypopharyngeal tumor. We conclude that PEG is a useful addition to the armamentarium of the head and neck surgeon.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HullM.A., RawlingsJ., MurrayF.E.Audit of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Lancet1993; 341: 869–872.
2.
BaetenC., HoefnagelsJ.Feeding via nasogastric tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A comparison. Scand J Gastroenterol1992; 194(Suppl): 95–98.
3.
HuangD.T., ThomasG., WilsonW.R.Stomal seeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1992; 118: 658–659.
4.
GaudererM.W.L., PonskyJ.L., IzantRJJr.Gastrostomy without laparotomy: A percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg1980; 15: 872–875.
5.
PonskyJ.L., GaudererM.W.L.Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Indications, limitations, techniques and results. World J Surg1989; 13: 165–170.
6.
DiLorenzoJ., DaltonB., MiskovitzP.Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. What are the benefits, what are the risks? Postgrad Med1992; 91: 277–281.
7.
FergusonD.R., HarigJ.M., KozarekR.A.Placement of a feeding button as the initial procedure. Am J Gastroenterol1993; 88: 501–504.
8.
ParkR.H., AllisonM.C., LangJ.Randomized comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia. BJM1992; 304: 1406–1409.
