ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
Clinical Features and Advantages of a Novel Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Method.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND To study the clinical characteristics of novel percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the hospital records of 173 patients undergoing various methods of gastrostomy (a novel PEG, traditional PEG, and surgical gastrostomy). Clinical characteristics were analyzed. For the novel PEG, the operation was as same as the traditional method for initial steps until the annular guide wire was inserted. The following steps were different: water was injected through an injection port to expand the capsule, then the water sac was confirmed to be close to the gastric wall under endoscope, and, finally, the incision was sutured and covered. RESULTS Patient ages ranged from 42 to 93 years (60.8±9.2 years, 91 males and 82 females). Among all patients, there were 27 cases of brain trauma, 42 cases of cerebral infarction, 74 cases of esophageal or cardiac carcinoma, 21 cases of laryngocarcinoma, and 9 cases of Alzheimer disease. Clinical features were significantly better for novel PEG compared to traditional PEG: duration of operation (19.75±3.14 min vs. 37.86±5.33 min and 54.12±9.48 min, P<0.001), intraoperative blood loss (27.14±3.63 ml vs. 43.53±6.24 ml and 75.78±12.41 ml, P<0.001), postoperative pain score (1.12±0.19 pts vs. 3.85±0.44 pts and 6.22±1.06 pts; P<0.001), infection rate (1.35% vs. 3.77% and 2.17%, P<0.001), length of hospital stay (3.16±0.42 d vs. 5.68±0.78 d and 8.29±1.31 d, P<0.001), and time to free activity (2.24±0.26h vs. 3.74±0.48 h and 14.85±2.38 d, P<0.001). The incidence of complications such as wound infection (1.35% vs. 3.77% and 4.76%), vomiting (1.35% vs. 5.66% and 6.52%), and nausea (2.70% vs. 1.88% and 6.52%) in the novel PEG group was lower than in the other groups (P<0.0001). Improved outcomes were obtained without increased medical costs in the novel PEG group. CONCLUSIONS For patients with difficult postoperative oral nutrition, the novel PEG treatment resulted in overall better clinical outcomes than traditional PEG.
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.