Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:11:50.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)