Background. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGTs) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo) radiotherapy without any good scientific basis.Methods. A prospective study was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGTs in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction, and cost.Results. There were 32 PEG and 73 NGT patients. PEG patients sustained significantly less weight loss at 6 weeks post-treatment (median 0.8 kg gain vs 3.7 kg loss, p < .001), but had a high insertion site infection rate (41%), longer median duration of use (146 vs 57 days, p < .001), and more grade 3 dysphagia in disease-free survivors at 6 months (25% vs 8%, p ¼ .07). Patient self-assessed general physical condition and overall quality of life scores were similar in both groups. Overall costs were significantly higher for PEG patients.Conclusion. PEG tube use should be selective, not routine, in this patient population.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGT) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo)radiotherapy without any good scientific basis. A randomized trial was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGT in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction and cost. The study was closed early because of poor accrual, predominantly due to patients' reluctance to be randomized. There were 33 patients eligible for analysis. Nutritional support with both tubes was good. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates, chest infection rates or in patients' assessment of their overall quality of life. The cost of a PEG tube was 10 times that of an NGT. The duration of use of PEG tubes was significantly longer, a median 139 days compared with a median 66 days for NGT. We found no evidence to support the routine use of PEG tubes over NGT in this patient group.
We investigated the efficacy of a single vs. double steroid injections in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in a randomised double-blind controlled trial. Patients with idiopathic CTS were randomised into (i) one group receiving a baseline methylprednisolone acetate injection plus a saline injection 8 weeks later and (ii) a second group receiving methylprednisolone acetate injection at baseline and at 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the Global Symptom Score (GSS). Forty patients were recruited. By 40 weeks, the mean GSS improved from 25.6 to 14.1 in the single-injection group whereas from 26.7 to 12.6 in the reinjection group, but there was no significant difference in GSS between the two groups (p = 0.26). There were also no significant differences in terms of electrophysiological and functional outcomes. The results suggest that an additional steroid injection confers no added benefit to a single injection in terms of symptom relief.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.