A comparative study on the success rate and safety between computed tomography-guided gastrostomy and endoscopic gastrostomy
10.3760/cma.j.cn311367-20221206-00605
- VernacularTitle:计算机断层扫描引导下胃造瘘术与内镜胃造瘘术成功率和安全性对比研究
- Author:
Kepu DU
1
;
Yucheng HE
;
Xiaofei LOU
;
Meng WANG
;
Yadan LI
;
Mengyu GAO
;
Fei GAO
;
Zhigang ZHOU
Author Information
1. 郑州大学第一附属医院放射科，郑州 450052
- Keywords:
Gastrostomy;
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy;
Percutaneous radiological gastrostomy;
Computed tomography-guided;
Technical success rate;
Security
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestion
2023;43(2):102-106
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare and analyze the technical success rate and safety between computed tomography(CT)-percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Methods:From January 2017 to January 2022, at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, the data of 76 patients who underwent gastrostomy due to inability to eat orally were collected, including 38 patients in PEG group and 38 patients in CT-PRG group. Surgical outcomes and complications were compared between the PEG and CT-PRG groups. Surgical outcomes included technical success rate, operation time, postoperative body mass index and hospital stay; while complications included minor complications (such as perifistula infection, granulation tissue proliferation, leakage, pneumoperitoneum, fistula tube obstruction, fistula tube detachment and persistent pain) and serious complications (such as bleeding, peritonitis, colonic perforation and death within 30 d). Independent sample t test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact probability test were used for statistical analysis. Results:The technical success rate of CT-PRG group was higher than that of the PEG group (100.0%, 38/38 vs. 78.9%, 30/38), and the operation time was shorter than that of the PEG group ((17.16±8.52) min vs. (29.33±16.22) min), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=1.19, t=2.36; P=0.038 and 0.011). There were no significant differences in postoperative body mass index ((16.29±3.56) kg/m 2 vs. (16.12±3.17) kg/m 2) and hospital stay ((4.13±1.26) d vs. (3.52±1.13) d) between PEG group and CT-PRG group (both P>0.05). The incidence of minor complications in the PEG group was 42.1% (16/38), including 6 cases of perifistulal infection, 1 case of leakage, 5 cases of fistula tube obstruction, 1 case of fistula tube detachment, and 3 cases of persistent pain. The incidence of serious complications was 5.3% (2/38), including 1 case of bleeding and 1 case of colonic perforation. The incidence of minor complications in the CT-PRG group was 39.5% (15/38), including 5 cases of perifistula infection, 1 case of granulation tissue proliferation, 3 cases of pneumoperitoneum, 3 cases of fistula tube obstruction, 2 cases of fistula tube detachment, and 1 case of persistent pain. The incidence of serious complications was 0. There was no significant difference in the incidence of minor complications between the PEG group and the CT-PRG group ( P>0.05), while the incidence of serious complications in the CT-PRG group was lower than that of the PEG group, and the difference was statistically significant (Fisher exact probability test, P=0.043). Conclusion:PEG is a safe and effective method of gastrostomy, but for patients with esophageal obstruction, CT-PRG can be an effective supplement to PEG.
