This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Jones, M. Articles by Falcone, R. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, M. Articles by Falcone, R. E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Percutaneous Endoscopic vs Surgical Gastrostomy

Section of Trauma Department of Surgery, Grant Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio

Steven A. Santanello, D.O.

Section of Trauma Department of Surgery, Grant Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio

Robert E. Falcone, M.D.

Section of Trauma Department of Surgery, Grant Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio

The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has replaced the surgical gastrostomy (GT) on our service. We reviewed our data in an effort to determine relative efficacy and cost effectiveness of the two techniques. Thirty-five patients with PEGs were matched for age and diagnosis with 35 patients with GTs done by the same surgical service. PEGs were done in the endoscopy suite; GTs were done in the operating room: both under local anesthesia. Patients in PEG and GT groups were comparable in sex, diagnosis, and age. The PEG took less time to insert (15.3 vs 25.4 min, p < 0.001). Major postoperative morbidity was similar with 10 systemic complications for each group and 11 deaths for the PEG us 12 deaths for the GT group (at 90 days). Minor morbidity was higher for the PEG group with nine complications vs 1. Estimated cost for PEG was half the cost of GT. Hospital stay for the two groups was similar (36 vs 45 days, p > 0.1), but postop stay for the PEG group tended to be shorter (17 us 24 days, p < 0.08). The PEG is faster and cheaper to insert than the GT, however major morbidity and mortality are the same. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 14:533-534, 1990)

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 14, No. 5, 533-534 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607190014005533


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. M. Schneider, C. Raina, P. Pugliese, I. Pouget, P. Rampal, and X. Hebuterne Outcome of Patients Treated with Home Enteral Nutrition JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, July 1, 2001; 25(4): 203 - 209. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S M Dresner, J Wayman, T Lovel, N Hayes, and S M Griffin Percutaneous endoscopic duodenostomy: the relief of obstruction in advanced gastric carcinoma Palliative Medicine, March 1, 1999; 13(2): 165 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B Norton, M Homer-Ward, M T Donnelly, R G Long, and G K T Holmes A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke BMJ, January 6, 1996; 312(7022): 13 - 16. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C. Park and P. O'Neill Management of neurological dysphagia Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 1994; 8(2): 166 - 174. [PDF]

				M. L. Koh and E. W. Lipkin Nutrition Support of a Pregnant Comatose Patient via Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, July 1, 1993; 17(4): 384 - 387. [Abstract] [PDF]