ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2017
Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Practice Guideline for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy.Gut and liver · 2024Guideline
- Gastropexy-Assisted vs. Gastropexy-Free Introducer Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Dose-response relationships of dietary quality with mortality stratified by dietary inflammation and their joint associations among cancer survivors: a population-based cohort study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on gastrostomy feeding tubes: methodology and review of evidence.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Gastrostomies: Associated Complications in PUSH vs. PULL Techniques over 12 Years in a Referral Centre.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- To push or to pull? A clinical audit on the efficacy and safety of the pull and push percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in oncological patients.United European gastroenterology journal · 2023Article
- Impact of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Feeding on Nutritional Status in Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- [Clinical Practice Guideline for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2023Review
- Clinical practice guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Effect of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy on Quality of Life after Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Cross-Sectional Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- Comparison of Pull and Introducer Techniques for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- Outcomes of push and pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements in 854 patients: A single-center study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Article
- 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
- Nutritional Support of Cancer Patients without Oral Feeding: How to Select the Most Effective Technique?GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Squamous cell carcinoma implantation in gastrostomy orifice. Case report.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of São Paulo.
resultsThe procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions.
conclusionThe push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.
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.