Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach to Gastrostomy Tubes

Abstract

The authors describe a laparoscopic Stamm gastrostomy and compare it with the open approach.

Comparison of Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrostomy/Jejunostomy in Patients with Complete Obstruction Caused by Advanced Esophageal Cancer

“…Laparoscopic surgery with a single incision or a reduced port has rapidly gained popularity at both academic and private institutions, most often for performing cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrostomy, and jejunostomy 7,13 . In conclusion, we demonstrated LGJ is associated with less postoperative pain than OGJ in patients with complete obstruction caused by advanced esophageal cancer.…”

“…Laparoscopic surgery, which was first described in 1991 8,9 , has several advantages over standard open gas-trostomy, including smaller incisions, less postoperative pain, better cosmetic outcomes, and lower rates of incisional hernia, ileus, and wound infection. A conventional multiport laparoscopic gastrostomy (3-trocar approach) is reportedly less invasive than open gastrostomy 6,7,10 . Recently, laparoscopic procedures with a single port or reduced port access have been performed in general and gastrointestinal diseases and have been found to have even better cosmetic benefits, less postoperative pain, earlier recovery, and fewer port-site complications than conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery 11,12 .…”

The Tibal Nerve (Posterior Tibal Nerve): Anatomical Course and Relation at the Ankle

“…Nutritional assessment and intervention should be an integral part of treatment since this complication can lead to compromised treatment efficacy. Today the PEG technique has reduce the use of nasogastric tubes and open gastrostomy tube placement due to reductions in major complications, patient discomfort, days spent in the hospital, and costs [23,30]. Mortality is less than 1%, mayor complications as early tube extrusion, Buried bumper syndrome, PEG site metastasis, and visceral perforation represent 1% and minor complications as peristome infection, periostomal leakage, late tube extrusion, impacted lumen cellulitis, ileus, and hematoma represent 5% to 15% [31][32][33][34][35].…”

“…Various methods of PEG tube placement have been reported Gauderer-Ponsky, SacksVine, Russell and radiologic-assisted techniques [21,22]. The ''pull'' placement technique is the most commonly practiced worldwide [7,23,24]. In this technique, the tube is moved through the endoscopy to be recovered by simple traction trough the abdominal wall (Pull technique) [21,23,25] (Figure 1 & 2).…”

“…The ''pull'' placement technique is the most commonly practiced worldwide [7,23,24]. In this technique, the tube is moved through the endoscopy to be recovered by simple traction trough the abdominal wall (Pull technique) [21,23,25] (Figure 1 & 2). This Technique is widely standardized and used but has a disadvantage for head and neck and esophageal oncologic patients, since goes through the primary lesion as an obligated pathway for the tube placement.…”