ArticleSurgical endoscopy2007
The introducer technique is the optimal method for placing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in head and neck cancer patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03252509 (Outpatient Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Patients With Head and Neck Tumors), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Outpatient Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Patients With Head and Neck Tumors
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylactic vs. reactive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis of survival and supportive care outcomes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Surgical Gastrostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Introducer Technique in Patients with Upper Aerodigestive Malignancies: A Single-Center Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2020Observational
- Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer.United European gastroenterology journal · 2017Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using a novel large-caliber introducer technique kit: a retrospective analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2016Article
- Peritonitis related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for cancer patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with Funada-style gastropexy greatly reduces the risk of peristomal infection.Gastroenterology report · 2015Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Overtubes for PEG-Tube Placement in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2015Article
- Usefulness of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for supportive therapy of advanced aerodigestive cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2013Review
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: predictors of 30-day complications, 30-day mortality, and overall mortality.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2013Article
- Does PEG use cause dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients?Dysphagia · 2012Article
- Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 435 cases.BMC gastroenterology · 2009Article
- An audit of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: reducing the incidence of peri-operative airway events by the introduction of a tumour assessment protocol.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are often placed in head and neck cancer patients to provide nutritional support, but studies have found the complication rates to be higher than other subsets of patients who undergo PEG placement. Complication rates as high as 50% have been reported, with the bulk of these complications being PEG site issues (i.e., cellulitis, abscess, fascitis, and tumor implantation). Because the pull technique has been the primary technique used, the theory is that the transoral tube passage is the source of the complications in these patients. Alternatively, the introducer technique uses a transabdominal approach to place the device, avoiding any tube contamination by upper aerodigestive organisms or tumor cells. At our institution, this technique has been used exclusively for head and neck cancer patients and this article reports our experience.
methodsOne hundred forty-nine head and neck cancer patients who had a prophylactic PEG tube placed were reviewed from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. The rates of placement success, morbidity, and complications were determined.
resultsSuccessful placement was achieved in 148 (99%) patients without any PEG-related deaths. Overall, 17 complications (11%) occurred, with only one major complication (0.7%) identified. PEG site infections were uncommon with only five cases (3.4%) and all were mild cellulitis.
conclusionsThe introducer technique is the safest method for PEG tube placement in head and neck cancer patients. The overall rate of complications is low and PEG site infectious complications are rare. The introducer technique should be the method of choice for PEG tubes in head and neck cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.