Comparison of laparoscopic versus open approach to gastrostomy tubes

Gastrostomy tube insertion for enteral access may be performed through laparotomy (open) or through the laparoscopic approach. This study's purpose is to compare outcomes of these different approaches.

A retrospective chart review of all patients (age >18 years) who underwent insertion of a gastrostomy tube as a single elective procedure between 2004 and 2012 was performed. Primary end points included postoperative overall and tube-related morbidity, tube revision rates, and operative time.

During the study period, 71 patients had a gastrostomy tube inserted via either the open (n 46) or the laparoscopic (n 25) approach. Preoperative variables including age, gender, body mass index, albumin, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were statistically comparable between groups. There was no difference in rates of previous upper abdominal surgery (24% vs 26%, P = .590) or gastric surgery (12% vs 13%, P = .720) in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Previous percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion rates were higher in the laparoscopic group (32% vs 6.5%, P = .005). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (76.8 ± 7 vs 55.8 ± 3, P = .003) but was not affected by previous abdominal surgery or higher body mass index. Overall morbidity, tube-related morbidity, and tube revision rates were similar between groups. However, there was a trend toward increased major complication rates in the open group (6.5% vs 0%, P = .190).

Laparoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion is safe and feasible, even in patients who have had prior upper abdominal surgery. Patients with a prolonged prognosis, obesity, and intact neurologic capacity may benefit the most from this approach.