Retrospective comparison of outcomes and associated complications between large bore radiologically inserted gastrostomy tube types
Multiple approaches to radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) exist. The goal of this study was to compare 30-day outcomes and associated complications between large bore balloon-retained (BR), loop-retained (LR), and pull-type (PT) RIG devices.
Data on 1477 patients who underwent RIG between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016 were collected retrospectively using a dedicated interventional radiology database and electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed to compare complication rates between BR, LR, and PT devices.
Ninety-eight percent (1477/1507) of the procedures were successfully performed. A total of 752 BR, 323 LR, and 402 PT gastrostomy tubes were placed. The overall complication rate for BR catheters was 5.7% (25 major [3.3%] and 18 minor [2.4%]). The overall complication rate for PT catheters was 3.7% (8 major [2.0%] and 7 minor [1.7%]). The overall complication rate for LR catheters was 1.6% (4 major [1.4%] and 1 minor [0.8%]). Compared to BR catheters, LR catheters had significantly fewer total complications (P = 0.01) but not minor complications (P = 0.052). There were no significant differences in the number of complications between LR and PT catheters or between BR and PT catheters.
Use of BR, LR, and PT devices for RIG is safe with a low incidence of complications. Compared to BR catheters, primary insertion of a LR gastrostomy was associated with significantly fewer overall complications within the first 30 days. Therefore, for initial tube placement, large bore LR catheters may be preferred over BR devices.
KeywordsRadiologically inserted gastrostomy Balloon-retained Loop-retained Pull-type
Radiologically inserted gastrostomy
We would like to thank Ivor Asztalos for help with statistical analyses.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
David J. Tischfield has no conflicts of interest. Gregory J. Nadolski reports grants from Guerbet, grants and personal fees from Teleflex, and grants from Lutonix, all outside the scope of the submitted work. Terence P. Gade has no conflicts of interest. Stephen J. Hunt reports personal fees from Amgen and BTG, all outside the scope of the submitted work. Richard D. Shlansky-Goldberg reports grants from BSC, all outside the scope of the submitted work. Maxim Itkin reports grants from Guerbet, all outside the scope of the submitted work.
Grant support and other assistance
The authors have no grants or funding sources to acknowledge.
- 2.de Baere T, Chapot R, Kuoch V, et al. (1999) Percutaneous gastrostomy with fluoroscopic guidance: single-center experience in 500 consecutive cancer patients. Radiology 210(3):651–654. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.210.3.r99mr40651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Yang Y, Schneider J, Duber C, Pitton MB (2011) Comparison of fluoroscopy-guided Pull-type percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (pull-type-PRG) with conventional percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (push-type-PRG): clinical results in 253 patients. Eur Radiol 21(11):2354–2361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2194-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Bernstein OA, Campbell J, Rajan DK, et al. (2015) Randomized trial comparing radiologic pigtail gastrostomy and peroral image-guided gastrostomy: intra- and postprocedural pain, radiation exposure, complications, and quality of life. J Vasc Interv Radiol 26(11):1680–1686 (; quiz 6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2015.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Preshaw RM (1981) A percutaneous method for inserting a feeding gastrostomy tube. Surg Gynecol Obstet 152(5):658–660Google Scholar
- 25.Stern JS (1986) Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with surgical gastrostomy at a community hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 81(12):1171–1173Google Scholar
- 27.Grant DG, Bradley PT, Pothier DD, et al. (2009) Complications following gastrostomy tube insertion in patients with head and neck cancer: a prospective multi-institution study, systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 34(2):103–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.01889.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.MacLean AA, Alvarez NR, Davies JD, Lopez PP, Pizano LR (2007) Complications of percutaneous endoscopic and fluoroscopic gastrostomy tube insertion procedures in 378 patients. Gastroenterol Nurs 30(5):337–341. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SGA.0000296252.70834.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar