Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 1/2019

01-01-2019

Retrospective comparison of outcomes and associated complications between large bore radiologically inserted gastrostomy tube types

Authors: David J. Tischfield, Gregory J. Nadolski, Stephen J. Hunt, Maxim Itkin, Richard D. Shlansky-Goldberg, Terence P. Gade

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Multiple approaches to radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) exist. The goal of this study was to compare 30-day outcomes and associated complications between large bore balloon-retained (BR), loop-retained (LR), and pull-type (PT) RIG devices.

Methods

Data on 1477 patients who underwent RIG between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016 were collected retrospectively using a dedicated interventional radiology database and electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed to compare complication rates between BR, LR, and PT devices.

Results

Ninety-eight percent (1477/1507) of the procedures were successfully performed. A total of 752 BR, 323 LR, and 402 PT gastrostomy tubes were placed. The overall complication rate for BR catheters was 5.7% (25 major [3.3%] and 18 minor [2.4%]). The overall complication rate for PT catheters was 3.7% (8 major [2.0%] and 7 minor [1.7%]). The overall complication rate for LR catheters was 1.6% (4 major [1.4%] and 1 minor [0.8%]). Compared to BR catheters, LR catheters had significantly fewer total complications (P = 0.01) but not minor complications (P = 0.052). There were no significant differences in the number of complications between LR and PT catheters or between BR and PT catheters.

Conclusions

Use of BR, LR, and PT devices for RIG is safe with a low incidence of complications. Compared to BR catheters, primary insertion of a LR gastrostomy was associated with significantly fewer overall complications within the first 30 days. Therefore, for initial tube placement, large bore LR catheters may be preferred over BR devices.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Gutt CN, Held S, Paolucci V, Encke A (1996) Experiences with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. World J Surg 20(8):1006–1008 (; discussion 108–9)CrossRefPubMed Gutt CN, Held S, Paolucci V, Encke A (1996) Experiences with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. World J Surg 20(8):1006–1008 (; discussion 108–9)CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Laasch HU, Wilbraham L, Bullen K, et al. (2003) Gastrostomy insertion: comparing the options—PEG, RIG or PIG? Clin Radiol 58(5):398–405CrossRefPubMed Laasch HU, Wilbraham L, Bullen K, et al. (2003) Gastrostomy insertion: comparing the options—PEG, RIG or PIG? Clin Radiol 58(5):398–405CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF, et al. (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14(9 Pt 2):S293–S295CrossRefPubMed Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF, et al. (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14(9 Pt 2):S293–S295CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr (1980) Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 15(6):872–875CrossRefPubMed Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr (1980) Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 15(6):872–875CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Preshaw RM (1981) A percutaneous method for inserting a feeding gastrostomy tube. Surg Gynecol Obstet 152(5):658–660PubMed Preshaw RM (1981) A percutaneous method for inserting a feeding gastrostomy tube. Surg Gynecol Obstet 152(5):658–660PubMed
25.
go back to reference Stern JS (1986) Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with surgical gastrostomy at a community hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 81(12):1171–1173PubMed Stern JS (1986) Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with surgical gastrostomy at a community hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 81(12):1171–1173PubMed
26.
go back to reference Cosentini EP, Sautner T, Gnant M, et al. (1998) Outcomes of surgical, percutaneous endoscopic, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomies. Arch Surg 133(10):1076–1083CrossRefPubMed Cosentini EP, Sautner T, Gnant M, et al. (1998) Outcomes of surgical, percutaneous endoscopic, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomies. Arch Surg 133(10):1076–1083CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Moller P, Lindberg CG, Zilling T (1999) Gastrostomy by various techniques: evaluation of indications, outcome, and complications. Scand J Gastroenterol 34(10):1050–1054CrossRefPubMed Moller P, Lindberg CG, Zilling T (1999) Gastrostomy by various techniques: evaluation of indications, outcome, and complications. Scand J Gastroenterol 34(10):1050–1054CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Galletti R, Finocchiaro E, Repici A, Saracco G, Zanardi M (2001) Comparison of complication rates between endoscopic and fluoroscopic percutaneous gastrostomies. Nutrition 17(11–12):967–968CrossRefPubMed Galletti R, Finocchiaro E, Repici A, Saracco G, Zanardi M (2001) Comparison of complication rates between endoscopic and fluoroscopic percutaneous gastrostomies. Nutrition 17(11–12):967–968CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Retrospective comparison of outcomes and associated complications between large bore radiologically inserted gastrostomy tube types
Authors
David J. Tischfield
Gregory J. Nadolski
Stephen J. Hunt
Maxim Itkin
Richard D. Shlansky-Goldberg
Terence P. Gade
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1717-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Abdominal Radiology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

Calyceal crescents (of Dunbar and Nogrady)