Percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy after gastric surgery

Percutaneous Gastrojejunostomy Tube Insertion in Patients with Surgical Gastrojejunal Anastomoses: Analysis of Success Rates and Durability

Patients with a gastrojejunal anastomosis pose challenging anatomy for percutaneous gastrojejunostomy (GJ)-tube placement. A retrospective review of 24 patients (mean age 67.8 years, 13 males) with GJ anastomoses who underwent attempted GJ tube placement revealed infeasible placement in 6 patients (25%) due to an inadequate window for puncture. When a gastric puncture was achieved, GJ tube insertion was technically successful in 83% (15/18) of attempts, resulting in an overall technical success rate of 63% (15/24). The most common tube-related complication was the migration of the jejunal limb into the stomach, which occurred in 40% (6/15) of successful cases. No major procedure related complications were encountered.

Percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy

Gastrostomy allows enteral nutrition to continue in patients who are unable to meet their caloric requirements orally. Though the indications for gastrostomy placement are varied, dysphagia secondary to a neurological condition is the most common. These catheters were initially placed surgically, but percutaneous endoscopic placement is now the routine in most centers. Interventional radiologists have been performing this procedure under fluoroscopic guidance for several years with encouraging results. Percutaneous radiological gastrostomy is reported to have a success rate comparable to that of the endoscopic method, with lower morbidity and mortality rates. A further benefit is that it may be performed in patients for whom the endoscopic method would be difficult or dangerous, such as those with head and neck malignancies. One of the main factors currently limiting the use of this procedure is the shortage of interventional radiology facilities and specialists.This article describes a technique for routine percutaneous radiological gastrostomy catheter placement and procedural variations for difficult cases. Indications and contraindications will be discussed, as will complication rates and how these compare with the traditional methods of gastrostomy tube placement.

Enteric Feeding with Gastric Decompression: Management with Separate Gastric Accesses

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose is to describe our experience with combined enteral feeding and gastric decompression or drainage in debilitated patients with persistent gastroesophageal reflux using two separate catheters.

CONCLUSION

The placement of two percutaneous catheters through separate skin sites is a feasible and successful approach to providing enteral feeding and gastric decompression or drainage in debilitated patients with persistent gastroesophageal reflux and aspiration pneumonia.

The role of the interventional radiologist in enteral alimentation

The provision of enteral nutrition through the placement of gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy tubes is a well-established procedure. Traditionally, these catheters have been placed either surgically or endoscopically; however, over the past two decades interventional radiologists have increasingly performed these procedures successfully. The perceived advantages of this route lie in the reported lower morbidity and mortality rates. In addition, percutaneous radiologically guided (PRG) catheters may be placed in certain subgroups of patients in whom it would be technically difficult or impossible by other routes, e.g., patients with head and neck or oesophageal tumours. The aim of this review is to describe the techniques of radiologically placed gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy, discuss its indications and contraindications, describe any associated potential complications and compare PRG results with the more established techniques of open surgical and endoscopic placement. We also describe some recent procedural and catheter modifications.

Classifying complications of interventional procedures: a survey of practicing radiologists

PURPOSE

To determine the variability of radiologists' classification of complications from interventional procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen test cases were selected from a database of morbidity and mortality cases that occurred in our department during the past 2 years. Ten cases were selected randomly, and five were chosen because of classification difficulties within our department. A survey with the case descriptions was presented to 145 SCVIR members via the World Wide Web and 48 were distributed to participants at a statewide angiography club meeting. Participants were asked to complete a short assessment of the their clinical background and to classify each case as "no complication," "minor complication," or "major complication."

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent (74 of 193) of the surveys were completed. Seventy percent (52 of 74) of the respondents were affiliated with an academic program, 12% (nine of 74) were affiliated with private practice groups, and 18% (13 of 74) claimed both academic and private affiliation. The consensus rate in classifying the complications for the randomly selected cases varied from 50% to 95%, with a median of 69%, and the consensus rate in classifying the selected cases varied from 46% to 95%, with a median of 85%. The lowest consensus rates occurred when (i) a significant procedural event was followed by a normal outcome, (ii) when a procedure was aborted, and (iii) when a significant event occurred but did not prolong hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Current criteria for reporting complications are associated with moderate rates of disagreement among interventional radiologists.