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
. 2023 Sep;46(9):1231-1237.
doi: 10.1007/s00270-023-03527-6. Epub 2023 Aug 17.

12Fr-Pigtail Versus 14Fr-Balloon Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy (PRG), Retrospective Evaluation of Outcomes and Complications; A Maastricht University Medical Centre Study

Glenn Dams #  1 , Robrecht R M M Knapen #  2   3 , Remon Korenblik  4   5 , Ronald M van Dam  5   6   7 , Michiel W de Haan  8 , Christiaan van der Leij  8   5
Affiliations

12Fr-Pigtail Versus 14Fr-Balloon Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy (PRG), Retrospective Evaluation of Outcomes and Complications; A Maastricht University Medical Centre Study

Glenn Dams et al. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively compare tube and placement related results of a 12Fr-pigtail and a 14Fr-balloon gastrostomy tube.

Materials and methods: All consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) between January 2016 and June 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective single-center analysis. Follow-up for all patients was 180 days. Mortality after 30 days, technical success, days to first complication within 180 days, reason of unexpected visit (tube, anchor or pain related), and tube specific complications (obstruction, pain, luxation, leakage) were taken as outcome measures. Data were obtained from both PACS software and electronic health records.

Results: A total of 247 patients were enrolled (12Fr-pigtail: n = 139 patients and 14Fr-balloon: n = 108 patients). 30-day mortality was very low in both groups and never procedure related. Technical success was 99% in both groups. The average number of complications within 180 days after initial PRG placement was significantly higher in the 12Fr-pigtail group (12Fr-pigtail: 0.93 vs. 14Fr-balloon: 0.64, p = 0.028). Time to first complication within 180 days was significantly longer in the 14Fr-balloon group (12Fr-pigtail: 29 days vs. 14Fr-balloon: 53 days, p = 0.005). In the 14Fr-balloon group, the rate of tube-related complications (luxation and obstruction) was significantly lower compared to 12Fr-pigtail (29% vs. 45%, p = 0.011).

Conclusion: 14Fr-balloon gastrostomy tubes have significantly lower (tube-related) complications rates and longer time to first complication compared to 12Fr-pigtail tubes. No procedure-related mortality was observed in either group. Technical success was very high in both groups. Level of Evidence Level 3, non-controlled retrospective cohort study.

Keywords: 12Fr-pigtail tubes; 14Fr-balloon tubes; Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG); Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of enrolled cases. PRG Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy; Fr French; PRJ Percutaneous radiologic jejunostomy
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cox regression survival curve. Number of days until first unexpected visit within first 180 days after initial PRG placement (p = 0.016). PRG Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Molina Villalba C, Vazquez Rodriguez JA, Gallardo SF. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Indications, care and complications. Med Clin (Barc) 2019;152(6):229–236. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2018.09.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rahnemai-Azar AA, Rahnemaiazar AA, Naghshizadian R, Kurtz A, Farkas DT. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(24):7739–7751. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7739. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ho SG, Marchinkow LO, Legiehn GM, Munk PL, Lee MJ. Radiological percutaneous gastrostomy. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(11):902–910. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0782. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Perona F, Castellazzi G, De Iuliis A, Rizzo L. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy: a 12-year series. Gut Liver. 2010;4(Suppl 1):S44–S49. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2010.4.S1.S44. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shin JH, Park AW. Updates on percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy and jejunostomy. Gut Liver. 2010;4(Suppl 1):S25–31. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2010.4.S1.S25. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources