ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Balloon assisted gastrostomy tube placement.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the safety and efficacy of balloon-assisted gastrostomy (BAG) placement to the conventional serial dilation technique.
methodsThis study is an IRB-approved retrospective review of all percutaneous gastrostomy tubes placed by an interventional radiology department at a single institution between 2012 and 2021. There were 476 patients identified (average age 63, 44% female): 385 in the serial dilation group and 91 in the balloon assisted gastrostomy (BAG) group. Patient demographic, procedure, and radiological data were reviewed in the medical record to determine procedure success, procedure/fluoroscopy time, and tube failures. Gastrostomy tube failure was defined as tube leak, clogging, or dislodgement. Adverse events were classified as per Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, student’s t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate.
resultsGastrostomy tubes were successfully placed in 97.7% (377/385) of patients undergoing the serial dilation technique and 100% (91/91) of patients undergoing the BAG placement technique. BAG tube placement was associated with a 2.5 min decrease (47%) in average fluoroscopy time ( p = 0.0002, CI: 3.76 to 1.20). Total procedure time was reduced by an average of 17.2 min (22%) ( p = 0.0006, CI: 26.9 to 7.4). BAG was also associated with an 11% reduction in all cause gastrostomy tube failure ( p = 0.0399). There were no statistically significant differences in the adverse event rates or median days to tube failure. Material costs were $178.32 higher in the BAG group.
conclusionBAG catheter placement can be performed safely and effectively, and is associated with reduced fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and overall failure rate compared to the serial dilation technique.
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.