Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement by otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons. (July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bäck, Leif J. J.; Benders, Alexander; Pietarinen, Petra; Keski-Säntti, Harri; Markkanen-Leppänen, Mari; Udd, Marianne; Halttunen, Jorma; Mäkitie, Antti A.; Kylänpää, Leena
• Is Part Of: Acta oto-laryngologica. Volume 134:Number 7(2014)
• Page Start: 760
• Page End: 767
• Publication Date: 2014-07
• Subjects: Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Ear -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Throat -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Electronic Resources; Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases; 617.8
• DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2014.895040
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6489

Abstract

<abstract> <title>Abstract</title> <p> <italic>Conclusion:</italic> Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement by an otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon is a feasible procedure with logistical advantages for the patient. Patient selection, co-morbidities, and the prognosis of the underlying disease are factors determining the outcome. Patient evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, with a gastroenterologist surgeon as a technical adviser, is proposed. <italic>Objective:</italic> PEG tube placement offers an alternative to enteral nutrition. We aimed to analyze complication rates after PEG tube placement in order to evaluate the changed management policy. <italic>Methods:</italic> This was a retrospective review of complication rates in two patient cohorts with consecutive PEG tube placement at the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (group I, <italic>n</italic> = 120) and Surgery (group II, <italic>n</italic> = 172) at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. Data were collected on the patients' age, sex, preoperative condition, tumor site and stage, preoperative laboratory parameters, coexisting medical diagnoses, indication and date for PEG tube placement, complications, time of PEG use, follow-up time, and clinical status at the last follow-up. <italic>Results:</italic> The only baseline differences between the cohorts were a higher ASA classification and fewer prophylactic PEG tubes in group II. The rate of major complications was 7.5% in group I and 13.9% in group II; in group I the rate of minor complications was 25%, compared with 15% in group II; and the procedure-related mortality rate was 0.8% in group I and 0.5% in group II. The differences were not significant (<italic>p</italic> = 0.105–0.795).</p> </abstract>