The prospective experience of a maxillofacial surgeon with the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy technique

Insertion of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy by head and neck surgeons: systematic review

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy to maintain nutrition in patients with cancer of the head and neck is increasingly being done by head and neck surgeons. We have reviewed published papers to assess the success rate of insertion and the incidence of complications.

Indications and outcomes for 100 patients managed with a pectoralis major flap within a UK maxillofacial unit

There are few studies reporting the role of the pedicled pectoralis major (PPM) flap in modern maxillofacial practice. The outcomes of 100 patients (102 flaps) managed between 1996 and 2012 in a UK maxillofacial unit that preferentially practices free tissue reconstruction are reported. The majority (88.2%) of PPM flaps were for oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), stage IV (75.6%) disease, and there was substantial co-morbidity (47.0% American Society of Anesthesiologists 3 or 4). The PPM flap was the preferred reconstruction on 80.4% of occasions; 19.6% followed free flap failure. Over half of the patients (57%) had previously undergone major surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy. Ischaemic heart disease (P=0.028), diabetes mellitus (P=0.040), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection (P=0.013) were independently associated with flap loss (any degree). Free flap failure was independently associated with total (2.0%) and major (6.9%) partial flap loss (P=0.044). Cancer-specific 5-year survival for stage IV primary SCC and salvage surgery improved in the second half (2005-2012) of the study period (22.2% vs. 79.8%, P=0.002, and 0% vs. 55.7%, P=0.064, respectively). There were also declines in recurrent disease (P=0.008), MRSA (P<0.001), and duration of admission (P=0.014). The PPM flap retains a valuable role in the management of advanced disease combined with substantial co-morbidity, and following free flap failure.

When is the optimal time for placing a gastrostomy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Determining the optimal timing for placing a gastrostomy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer involves complex decision making and multifactorial analysis. Lack of high-quality studies with appropriate end points for nutritional outcomes and heterogeneity of patient, clinical and organizational factors makes determining best practice nutritional care challenging. This review provides a background rationale for gastrostomy placement and evaluates the relevant literature extending beyond the past 12 months due to limited numbers of published studies. Emerging concepts and controversies are highlighted to demonstrate that the decision to place a gastrostomy or not has eclipsed the significance of patients' nutritional needs leading to much debate and inconsistencies in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the optimal method of tube feeding remains unclear due to challenges with study design, improved outcomes have been demonstrated with prophylactic tube feeding. Variation exists with selection criteria in the decision for gastrostomy placement based on clinical opinion rather than evidence-based practice. Gastrostomy use as a measure of swallowing outcomes and the presence of a feeding tube for quality of life (QOL) have led to the concept of gastrostomy dependency and a perceived association with poorer outcomes. The multidimensional contributors have been inadequately explored leaving this phenomenon poorly defined and misinterpreted. Best practice nutritional care incorporates malnutrition screening and nutritional assessment using validated tools, early referral to the dietitian and ongoing monitoring to optimize nutritional status throughout the patient's entire care pathway.

SUMMARY

The decision for timing of gastrostomy placement should be made at diagnosis given the benefits of prophylactic tube feeding. Accountability for insertion and removal of gastrostomies with alignment of services will facilitate risk assessment, appropriate placement, effective patient counselling and monitoring for major and minor complications. Nutritional outcomes need to be distinguished from swallowing and QOL measures and evaluated to include effects on nutritional status, gastrostomy complications, intensity and frequency of dietetic support and effect on survival.

Effect of the introducer technique compared with the pull technique on the peristomal infection rate in PEG: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peristomal infection is a main complication of PEG. The pull technique appears to be associated with higher infection rates compared with the introducer technique, although published results are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which technique is associated with a higher risk of infection.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Studies reporting rates of peristomal infection after PEG performed by either the pull or introducer technique.

PATIENTS

This study involved 2336 patients from 6 comparative and 10 observational studies.

INTERVENTION

Public MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine journal articles database), Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information databases and proceedings of two meetings, Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week, were searched. Both comparative and observational studies were included and analyzed separately.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Effect measures from each comparative study were reported as the odds ratio (OR). The pooled effect was then calculated. The infection rate in each observational study was also calculated, and a summary effect was then determined.

RESULTS

In comparative studies, the risk of infection was significantly higher with the pull technique (OR 13.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-36.8; P < .0001). Similarly, observational studies also reported higher infection rates with the pull technique (10.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-21.8 with the pull technique vs 0.9%; 95% CI, 0.2-4.5 with the introducer technique).

LIMITATIONS

Few studies were available for inclusion, and there was a high risk of bias among the comparative studies.

CONCLUSION

The pull technique appears to be associated with a significantly higher risk of infection compared with the introducer technique.