Primary placement of low-profile or 'button' versus traditional balloon-retention radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters in adults: a retrospective review.

IF 3.3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Hassan Al-Balas, Zeyad Metwalli, Iftikhar Burney, David Sada
{"title":"Primary placement of low-profile or 'button' versus traditional balloon-retention radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters in adults: a retrospective review.","authors":"Hassan Al-Balas,&nbsp;Zeyad Metwalli,&nbsp;Iftikhar Burney,&nbsp;David Sada","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>De novo percutaneous placement of radiologically inserted low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters (LPG) is infrequently reported in adults. This study compares the safety and clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous placement of LPG catheters and traditional balloon-retention gastrostomy catheters (TG) using image guidance at a single institution.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a retrospective, single-institution review comparing initial LPG and TG radiologically inserted catheter placements in a 36-month time period. The age, gender, indication, catheter type and method of anaesthesia of 139 consecutive initial gastrostomy placement procedures were recorded. Total catheter days without intervention, major and minor complications, reasons for reintervention, and procedure fluoroscopy times were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the 36-month study period, 61 LPG and 78 TG catheters were placed. Mean total catheter days prior to intervention was 137 days in the LPG group and 128 days in the TG group (p=0.70). Minor complications including cellulitis, pericatheter leakage and early catheter occlusion occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 9% (7/78) in the TG group (p=0.5). Major complications including early catheter dislodgement and bleeding requiring transfusion (in one patient) occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 7.7% (6/78) in the TG group (p=0.4). Procedure fluoroscopy time was lower in the LPG group (2.56 min) compared with the TG group (4.21 min) (p<0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Primary placement of low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters is technically feasible with a low complication rate similar to that of traditional radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dd/73/bmjgast-2023-001118.PMC10030477.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: De novo percutaneous placement of radiologically inserted low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters (LPG) is infrequently reported in adults. This study compares the safety and clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous placement of LPG catheters and traditional balloon-retention gastrostomy catheters (TG) using image guidance at a single institution.

Design: This was a retrospective, single-institution review comparing initial LPG and TG radiologically inserted catheter placements in a 36-month time period. The age, gender, indication, catheter type and method of anaesthesia of 139 consecutive initial gastrostomy placement procedures were recorded. Total catheter days without intervention, major and minor complications, reasons for reintervention, and procedure fluoroscopy times were compared.

Results: During the 36-month study period, 61 LPG and 78 TG catheters were placed. Mean total catheter days prior to intervention was 137 days in the LPG group and 128 days in the TG group (p=0.70). Minor complications including cellulitis, pericatheter leakage and early catheter occlusion occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 9% (7/78) in the TG group (p=0.5). Major complications including early catheter dislodgement and bleeding requiring transfusion (in one patient) occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 7.7% (6/78) in the TG group (p=0.4). Procedure fluoroscopy time was lower in the LPG group (2.56 min) compared with the TG group (4.21 min) (p<0.005).

Conclusion: Primary placement of low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters is technically feasible with a low complication rate similar to that of traditional radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters.

低轮廓或“按钮”与传统球囊保留放射学插入胃造口导管的初步放置:回顾性回顾。
目的:在成人中,经皮重新放置低侧或“纽扣式”胃造口导管(LPG)的报道并不多见。本研究比较了在同一机构使用图像引导的经皮置置LPG导管和传统气囊保留胃造口导管(TG)的安全性和临床结果。设计:这是一项回顾性的单机构研究,比较了36个月时间内初始LPG和TG放射插入导管的放置情况。记录139例连续初次胃造口手术患者的年龄、性别、适应证、导管类型及麻醉方式。比较未干预的总导管天数、主要和次要并发症、再次介入的原因和透视次数。结果:在36个月的研究期间,共放置了61根LPG导管和78根TG导管。干预前LPG组平均总导管天数为137天,TG组为128天(p=0.70)。LPG组和TG组分别有4.9%(3/61)和9%(7/78)出现蜂窝组织炎、导管外漏和早期导管闭塞等轻微并发症(p=0.5)。LPG组的主要并发症包括早期导管脱位和出血需要输血(1例),发生率为4.9% (3/61),TG组为7.7% (6/78)(p=0.4)。与TG组(4.21分钟)相比,LPG组(2.56分钟)的透视时间更短(p结论:低位或“纽扣式”胃造口导管的初次放置在技术上是可行的,并发症发生率低,与传统的放射插入式胃造口导管相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
BMJ Open Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信