Home » Writing » Radiologically inserted gastrostomy guidelines for writing

Radiologically inserted gastrostomy guidelines for writing

Purpose: To check outcome and connected complications of ballon- versus. loop-retained devices for radiologically placed gastrostomy (RIG).

Methods: From 2007 to 2011 233 patients (age 63.7 ± 10.6 years) were referred for any RIG due to pharyngeal stricture Intervention was performed with four different devices: balloon-retained – Freka ® GastroTube, Fresenius Kabi (n = 121) MIC ® Gastrostomy Feeding Tube, Kimberly–Clark (n = 34) Russell ® Gastrostomy Tray, Prepare Medical Corporation. (n = 17) and loop-retained – Tilma ® Gastrostomy Set, Prepare Medical Corporation. (n = 50). Follow-up was performed regarding RIG -related complications, reason for removal and fatalities. Revision-free survival occasions after RIG were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and group variations by log-rank tests. For analysis of demographic and systematic variables multivariate Cox regression models were utilised.

Results: Having a primary technical rate of success of 95.3% (222/233) as many as 92 cases of revisions were necessary in 66 patients (66/233, 28.3%) during follow-up (mean 182.8 ± 86.6 days). The most typical complication was tube dislodgement (14.3%). There have been no significant variations between your distinct devices (p = .098), but analyzing the information in subgroups of balloon-when compared with loop-retained gastrostomy tubes we observed a considerably greater possibility of minor complications for that latter (p = .023).

Conclusion: Because it is considerably less vulnerable to minor complications we advise using balloon-retained gastrostomy tubes to enhance the practicability and upkeep of RIG.