Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb;27(2):633-41.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2506-y. Epub 2012 Sep 7.

Percutaneous radiological gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients: a feasible and safe access for nutritional support during multimodal therapy

Williams Tessier  1 , Guillaume Piessen, Nicolas Briez, Arianna Boschetto, Géraldine Sergent, Christophe Mariette
Affiliations

Percutaneous radiological gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients: a feasible and safe access for nutritional support during multimodal therapy

Williams Tessier et al. Surg Endosc. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is not widely used in malnourished esophageal cancer (EC) patients because of concerns about its feasibility in frequently obstructive tumors, suitability of the stomach as an esophageal substitute, and potential for metastatic inoculation. A percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) could be an optimal alternative.

Methods: Experience with PRG among 1,205 consecutive patients presenting with EC from 2002 to 2011 in our department was retrospectively reviewed. PRG was mostly utilized for malnourished patients for whom neoadjuvant chemoradiation was scheduled. The rates of both successful placement and major related complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥III) were analyzed. A matched cohort analysis was constructed in patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastroplasty (n = 688) to evaluate the impact of PRG placement on the suitability of the gastric conduit and on postoperative course. For 78 resected patients with PRG (PRG group), 156 randomly selected controls without PRG (no PRG group) were matched 2:1 for gender, age, ASA grade, clinical TNM stage, and neoadjuvant treatment delivery.

Results: PRG placement was planned in 269 (22.3 %) patients mainly with locally advanced EC (63.8 %). PRG placement was feasible in 259 (96.3 %) patients. Sixty-day PRG-related mortality and major morbidity rates were 0 and 3.8 % respectively. For resected patients, the PRG and no PRG groups were comparable regarding perioperative characteristics, except for malnutrition, which was more frequent in the PRG group (P < 0.001). At the time of operation, PRG takedown and site closure were uncomplicated and the use of the stomach was possible in all 78 patients. Despite a higher malnutrition rate at presentation in the PRG group, rates of overall morbidity, and morbidity related to esophageal surgery, were similar between the two groups (P > 0.258).

Conclusion: PRG is feasible, safe, and useful in nonselected patients with EC and does not compromise the suitability of the stomach as an esophageal substitute in patients deemed to be resectable.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Surg Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;101(3):270-8 - PubMed
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Sep;179(3):735-9 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 2007 Sep;94(9):1151-4 - PubMed
    1. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2005;9 Suppl 2:S51-63 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 1999 Mar;210(3):651-4 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources