Gastrostomy in the era of minimally invasive head and neck cancer surgery

Frenkel, Catherine; Yang, Jie; Zhang, Mengru; Ferrara, Anthony; Telem, Dana A.; Samara, Ghassan

doi:10.1002/lary.26829

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prophylactic PEG tube insertion seems justifiable, since HNC treatment often includes radiotherapy and even minimal‐invasive surgical techniques do not always spare patients from reduced oral food intake …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancer: Influence on nutritional status, utilisation rate and complications

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. AbstractBackground: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are at high risk for malnutrition because of tumour localisation and therapy. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is common practice to prevent malnutrition.Objective: To investigate the benefits of prophylactic PEG tube placement for HNC patients in terms of the influence on patients' nutritional status, utilisation rate, complications and to identify the predictors of PEG tube utilisation. Methods:All consecutive HNC patients who underwent prophylactic PEG tube insertion between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012 prior to therapy were enrolled. The PEG tube utilisation rate, complications, the patients' nutritional status and tumour therapy were evaluated with the help of electronic patient charts and telephone interviews.Results: A total of 181 patients (48 female, median 67.5 years) were included. The PEG utilisation rate in the entire cohort was 91.7%. One hundred and forty-nine patients (82.3%) used the PEG tube for total enteral nutrition, 17 patients (9.4%) for supplemental nutrition and 15 patients (8.3%) made no use of the PEG tube. Peristomal wound infections were the most common complications (40.3%) in this study. A high Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score prior to tube insertion was found to be independently associated with PEG utilisation. No significant weight changes were observed across the three patient subgroups. Conclusions:The overall PEG tube utilisation rate was high in this study. However, given the high rate of infections, diligent patient selection is crucial in order to determine which patients benefit most from prophylactic PEG tube insertion. Entire cohort N = 161 Amount of total positive findings, N (%) 70 (43.48) Diagnosis during EGD Gastritis, N(%) 24 (34.29) Gastric erythema, N (%) 19 (27.14) Reflux oesophagitis, N (%) 4 (5.71) Gastric ulcus, N (%) 6 (8.57) Duodenal ulcus, N (%) 3 (4.29) Malignant duodenal tumour, N (%) 1 (1.43) Hiatal hernia, N (%) 6 (8.57) Erosive oesophagitis, N (%) 4 (5.71) Glycogen acanthosis N (%) 3 (4.29)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%