Related Experiment Videos
Laparoscopic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A comparison
D S Edelman1, P J Arroyo, S W Unger
1Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL 33140.
Surgical Endoscopy
|January 1, 1994
Summary
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic gastrostomy (LG) have comparable outcomes. LG offers a safe alternative for patients unsuitable for PEG, especially those with head and neck tumors.
Area of Science:
- Gastroenterology
- Surgical Procedures
- Medical Device Placement
Background:
- Gastrostomy tubes are crucial for nutritional support and airway protection.
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic gastrostomy (LG) are common methods for tube placement.
- Patient selection and procedural success rates vary between PEG and LG.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic gastrostomy (LG).
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of LG as an alternative to PEG in specific patient populations.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective comparative study of patients undergoing PEG versus LG.
- Analysis of patient demographics, procedure times, indications, and 30-day mortality.
- Comparison of outcomes between the two gastrostomy methods.
Main Results:
- PEG group: 17 patients, mean age 81, 28 min procedure time, 23% 30-day mortality (none procedure-related).
- LG group: 14 patients, mean age 66, 18 min procedure time, 35% 30-day mortality (7% procedure-related).
- Indications were similar; LG used for PEG technical failures, head/neck tumors, esophageal obstruction, and hiatal hernia.
Conclusions:
- Outcomes for LG and PEG were comparable in this study.
- LG is a suitable and safe alternative for patients unable to undergo gastroscopy.
- LG should be considered for patients with head and neck tumors or intrathoracic pathology contraindicating PEG.