Observational studyWorld journal of surgery2020
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Surgical Gastrostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Introducer Technique in Patients with Upper Aerodigestive Malignancies: A Single-Center Analysis.
Observational study in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastropexy-Assisted vs. Gastropexy-Free Introducer Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies inevitably carries a risk of stomal metastasis that could be avoided by the direct insertion of the gastrostomy tube through the abdomen. This study compared the efficacy and safety between surgical gastrostomy (SG) and Introducer PEG in patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies undergoing SG or Introducer PEG. Procedure data, postprocedural clinical outcomes and 30-day mortality were assessed.
resultsIn total, 99 patients were feasible to analysis: 53 were in the SG group, and 46 were in the Introducer PEG group. The SG group had a higher incidence of (in-hospital) major complications [28.3% VS 4.3%, p = 0.002], a longer procedure duration [52.02 ± 21.30 VS 21.46 ± 8.22 min, p < 0.001], higher pain scores at 24 h [median (interquartile range, IQR); 5(3-8) VS 1(0-5), p < 0.001] and longer length of hospitalization (LOH) [median (IQR); 5(4-6) days VS 3(2-4) days, p < 0.001)]. In-hospital (3.8% VS 0%, p = 0.493) and 30-day mortality (17.0% VS 13.0%, p = 0.586) were not different between the two groups. In univariate analysis, high BMI, anemia (hemoglobin <11 g/dL), normal nutritional status (serum albumin >3 g/dL) and procedural type were found to be predicting factors for complications. Procedural type (Introducer PEG) was an independent factor for major complications in multivariate analysis [OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.61, p= 0.011].
conclusionsIn patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies, Introducer PEG was associated with lower rate of (in-hospital) major complications, faster operative time, lower pain scores and shorter LOH. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: TCTR20181220004.
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.