Comparison of Introducer Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Open Gastrostomy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients

被引:0
作者
Prasit Mahawongkajit
Ajjana Techagumpuch
Palin Limpavitayaporn
Amonpon Kanlerd
Ekkapak Sriussadaporn
Jatupong Juntong
Assanee Tongyoo
Chatchai Mingmalairak
机构
[1] Thammasat University,Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine
来源
Dysphagia | 2020年 / 35卷
关键词
Advanced esophageal cancer; Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; Introducer PEG; Open gastrostomy; Enteral nutrition; Deglutition; Deglutition disorders;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In esophageal cancer treatment, nutrition by feeding tube has been demonstrated to improve patient tolerance of treatment, quality of life, and long-term outcomes. The open gastrostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using introducer technique are procedures that avoid cancer cells seeding and also improve patient’s nutritional status, hydration, and medication. The aim of this study is to compare the results of the introducer PEG and open gastrostomy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. A retrospective study was analyzed in the advanced esophageal cancer patients who indicated and received feeding support between January 2016 and December 2017. Twenty-eight patients in introducer PEG and 36 patients in open gastrostomy presented the following comparative data: mean operative duration time shorter, less pain score, and shorter hospitalization in introducer PEG than open gastrostomy. Both groups showed no readmission or 30-day mortality. The adverse events of open gastrostomy demonstrated higher than introducer PEG group. Both introducer PEG and open gastrostomy were the safe options for advanced esophageal cancer patients indicating for enteral feeding and to avoid cancer cell seeding but the introducer PEG demonstrated the effective minimally invasive procedure with fewer complications.
引用
收藏
页码:117 / 120
页数:3
相关论文
共 89 条
[1]  
Bray F(2018)Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 68 394-424
[2]  
Ferlay J(2018)Nutritional therapy for patients with esophageal cancer Nutr Cancer 70 23-29
[3]  
Soerjomataram I(1980)Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique J Pediatr Surg 15 872-875
[4]  
Siegel RL(2007)Risk factors and risk reduction of malignant seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy track from pharyngoesophageal malignancy: a review of all 44 known reported cases Am J Gastroenterol 102 1307-1311
[5]  
Torre LA(2013)Rare complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: ostomy metastasis of esophageal carcinoma World J Gastrointest Oncol. 5 204-206
[6]  
Jemal A(2013)Seeding of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site from head and neck carcinoma: case report and review of the literature Head Neck 35 E209-E212
[7]  
Jordan T(2015)Comparison of 231 patients receiving either “pull-through” or “push” percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy Surg Endosc 29 170-175
[8]  
Mastnak DM(2005)Metastatic head and neck carcinoma to a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site Head Neck 27 339-343
[9]  
Palamar N(2003)‘Push’ versus ‘pull’ percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients with advanced head and neck cancer Laryngoscope. 113 1898-1902
[10]  
Kozjek NR(2015)Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Funada-style gastropexy greatly reduces the risk of peristomal infection Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 3 69-74