MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Alternative techniques of feeding gastrostomy in children: a critical analysis.
Author: Goretsky MF, Johnson N, Farrell M, Ziegler MM.
Journal: J Am Coll Surg; 1996 Mar; 182(3):233-40. PubMed ID: 8603243.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: In the era of managed care, the operative procedure applied to solve a given problem should vary with the status of the patient, the training and experience of the specialist, an analysis of morbidity and mortality rates, and a cost analysis of therapeutic alternatives. The purpose of this study was to critically analyze three different techniques for gastric feeding access in children. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent primary feeding gastrostomy was performed at our institution. Patients who underwent gastrostomy placement concurrently with another major procedure were excluded. RESULTS: Over a 36-month period, 98 children underwent placement of a feeding gastrostomy by one of three alternative techniques: an open Stamm gastrostomy (Stamm, n=47), a pull-out percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG, n=32), or an antegrade percutaneous fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy (PFGG, n=19). An open gastrostomy was performed more frequently in younger patients (average age, 49.7+/-11.9 months for PFGG). The sex distribution and indication for tube placement were similar in all groups (altered mental status: Stamm 43 percent, PEG 19 percent, and PFGG 38 percent; mechanical feeding difficulty: Stamm 66 percent, PEG 13 percent, and PFGG 21 percent; or failure to thrive Stamm 58 percent, PEG 17 percent, and PFGG 25 percent). Complications were most common in this high-risk patient population with PEG (19 percent), when compared with PFGG (16 percent) and Stamm (11 percent), although these were not statistically significant. Whereas reflux was frequent (Stamm 6 percent, PEG 9 percent, and PFGG 21 percent), only three patients in the entire series required a subsequent antireflux operation during the observation period. The three procedures were similar on hospital charge analysis (Stamm $1,316,29+/-63.33. PEG $1,130.04+/-94.88, and PFGG $1,079.83+/-109.12). When professional fees were included, the PFGG may be more economical than both the PEG and Stamm gastrostomy (Stamm $3,101.29+/-73/33. PEG $3,314.04+/-94.88, and PFGG $1,485.77+/-74.41, p<0.05). However, this may be misleading because the radiologist's fee was absorbed into the hospital charge is some cases, and therefore could not be fully accounted for in the total professional fee. CONCLUSIONS: The data from our institution demonstrate that there is no significant difference in these three feeding-access techniques when comparing procedural cost-effectiveness, indications for tube placement, or morbidity rates. The choice of procedure should be individualized giving consideration to the overall health of the child, the comfort of the specialist peforming the given procedure, and the institutional experience.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]