title: Outcomes of surgical, percutaneous endoscopic, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomies.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate and compare outcomes and complications in patients having undergone gastrostomy by surgical (SG), percutaneous endoscopic (PEG), or percutaneous radiological (PRG) procedure.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  University-based tertiary care center.
  
  
  METHODS
  Of 82 patients who met inclusion criteria, 14 patients (median age, 40 years) received a surgical tube placement (SG), in 24 patients (median age, 55 years) a PEG procedure was performed, and in 44 patients (median age, 57 years) the tube was placed under fluoroscopic guidance (PRG). Indications for gastrostomy were similar in all groups, representing mainly cancer of the oropharyngeal, head and neck region (51 [61%]) as well as the upper gastrointestinal tract (6 [8%]), neurological disorders (15 [18%]), and others (10 [13%]).
  
  
  METHODS
  Catheter function rates, major and minor procedure-related complications, and survival.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Ten patients (71%) died in the SG group 7 to 855 days (median, 67 days) after the procedure, 7 patients (29%) died 5 to 263 days (median, 103 days) after PEG placement, and 30 patients (68%) died within 3 to 621 days (median, 112 days) after PRG, of their underlying disease or disease-related complications; 1 procedure-related death occurred 6 days after radiological tube placement. We observed a rate of minor complications of 43% (6 patients), 33% (8), and 36% (16) and a major complication rate of 14% (2 patients), 17% (4), and 11% (5) in the SG, PEG, and PRG groups, respectively. Tube function rates at 1 year were 67% (9 patients) and 68% (20) in the SG and PEG groups, respectively, and 10% lower (39) in the PRG group, although the difference was not statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no major difference between SG, PEG, and PRG concerning procedure-related complications. Tube function tends to be inferior after radiological tube placement.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University Clinic of Vienna, Austria.
authors.forename: E P
authors.initials: EP
authors.lastname: Cosentini
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Sautner
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gnant
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Winkelbauer
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Teleky
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Jakesz
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D004724:Endoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000401:mortality; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005774:Gastrostomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D015642:Radiology, Interventional; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D015996:Survival Rate; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome