Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2006

I K Rustom
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
A Jebreel
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
M Tayyab
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
R J A England
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
N D Stafford
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
Get access

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.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
© 2006 JLO (1984) Limited

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 139 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-5qzh9 Total loading time: 0.318 Render date: 2021-01-27T05:16:21.473Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *