scholarly journals Trans-Colostomy Placement of a Button Gastrostomy Tube for Malignant Bowel Obstruction in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mizuki Ozawa ◽  
Miyuki Sone ◽  
Yasuaki Arai ◽  
Shunsuke Sugawara ◽  
Chihiro Itou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Carcinomatosis ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube ◽  
Tube Placement ◽  
Malignant Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube Placement ◽  
Button Gastrostomy

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the trans-colostomy placement of a button gastrostomy tube for patients with malignant bowel obstruction due to peritoneal carcinomatosis. Material and Methods Data from seven consecutive patients who presented with malignant bowel obstruction due to peritoneal carcinomatosis involving the colostomy site and underwent trans-colostomy button gastrostomy tube placement between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We assessed technical and clinical success rate, procedure time, duration of improvement, and complication rate. Results The technical success rate of the trans-colostomy button gastrostomy tube placement was 100%, and average procedure time was 25 minutes. Clinical symptoms of malignant bowel obstruction resolved in four out of seven (57%) patients. Average duration of improvement in the four patients with clinical success was 170.8 days. There were no complications associated with the procedure. Conclusion Trans-colostomy button gastrostomy tube placement might be a safe and feasible treatment option for patients with malignant bowel obstruction due to peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Suboptimal Management of Code Status for Patients Receiving Venting Gastrostomy Tube Placement for Malignant Bowel Obstruction

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (4) ◽  
pp. S77-S78
Author(s):  
Marguerite Changala ◽  
Elizabeth J. Lilley ◽  
Angela M. Bader ◽  
Richard D. Urman ◽  
Nicholas Sadovnikoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube ◽  
Tube Placement ◽  
Malignant Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Code Status ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube Placement

scholarly journals Percutaneous Ultrasound Guided Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Prospective Cohort Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110155
Author(s):  
Stephen P. Reis ◽  
Sidney Z. Brejt ◽  
Joseph R. Weintraub ◽  
Noor Ahmad ◽  
Jonathan Susman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube ◽  
Tube Placement ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Percutaneous Gastrostomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tube

Background: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous ultrasound guided gastrostomy (PUG) tube placement with traditional fluoroscopic guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement (PRG). Methods: A prospective, observational, non-randomized cohort trial was performed comparing 25 consecutive patients who underwent PUG placement between April 2020 and August 2020 with 25 consecutive patients who underwent PRG placement between February 2020 and March 2020. Procedure time, sedation, analgesia requirements, and complications were compared between the two groups in non-inferiority analysis. Results: Technical success rates were 96% in both groups (24/25) of procedures. Ninety-two percent of patients in the PUG cohort were admitted to the ICU at the time of G-tube request. Aside from significantly more COVID-19 patients in the PUG group ( P < .001), there was no other statistically significant difference in patient demographics. Intra-procedure pain medication requirements were the same for both groups, 50 micrograms of IV fentanyl ( P = 1.0). Intra-procedure sedation with IV midazolam was insignificantly higher in the PUG group 1.12 mg vs 0.8 mg ( P = .355). Procedure time trended toward statistical significance ( P = .076), with PRG being shorter than PUG (30.5 ± 14.1 minutes vs 39.7 ± 17.9 minutes). There were 2 non-device related major complications in the PUG group and 1 major and 1 minor complication in the PRG group. Conclusion: PUG is similar in terms of complications to PRG gastrostomy tube placement and a safe method for gastrostomy tube placement in the critically ill with the added benefits of bedside placement, elimination of radiation exposure, and expanded and improved access to care.

Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Neonates Undergoing Congenital Heart Surgery: A Novel Assessment for Improving Utilization and Timing of Placement

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-486
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Beers ◽  
Aaron Bettenhausen ◽  
Thomas J. Prihoda ◽  
John H. Calhoon ◽  
S. Adil Husain
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Aortic Arch ◽  
Congenital Heart ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube ◽  
Tube Placement ◽  
Genetic Syndrome ◽  
Delayed Sternal Closure ◽  
Aortic Arch Reconstruction ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube Placement ◽  
Arch Reconstruction

Background: Neonates undergoing congenital heart defect repair require optimized nutritional support in the perioperative period. Utilization of a gastrostomy tube is not infrequent, yet optimal timing for placement is ill-defined. The objective of this study was to identify characteristics of patients whose postoperative course included gastrostomy tube placement to facilitate supplemental tube feeding following neonatal repair of congenital heart defects. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective chart review identified 64 consecutive neonates who underwent cardiac operations from 2012 to 2016. Perioperative variables were evaluated for significance in relation to gastrostomy tube placement. Results: A total of 27 (42%) underwent gastrostomy tube placement. Diagnosis of a genetic syndrome was associated with the likelihood of placement of gastrostomy tube ( P = .032), as were patients with single ventricle physiology ( P = .0013) compared to those felt to be amenable to eventual biventricular repair. Aortic arch reconstruction ( P = .029), as well as the need for delayed sternal closure ( P = .05), was associated with increased frequency of gastrostomy tube placement. Postoperative outcomes including the number of days intubated ( P = .0026) and the presence of significant dysphagia ( P = .0034) were associated with gastrostomy placement. Additionally, genetic syndrome ( P = .003), aortic arch reconstruction ( P = .01), and postoperative intubation duration ( P = .0024) correlated with increased length of stay, where increased length of stay was associated with gastrostomy tube placement ( P = .0004). Discussion: Patient characteristics that were associated with a high likelihood of eventual gastrostomy placement were identified in this study. Early recognition of such characteristics in future patients may allow for reduced time to gastrostomy tube placement, which in turn may improve perioperative growth and outcomes.

4734 Endoscopists' perspective on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement.

2000 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. AB217
Author(s):  
Sean R. Lacey ◽  
Elizabeth O'Toole ◽  
Richard C. Wong ◽  
Gregory S. Cooper ◽  
Stuart Youngner
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube ◽  
Tube Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube ◽  
Endoscopic Gastrostomy ◽  
Gastrostomy Tube Placement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document