ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Study of Surgical and Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Insertion in Pediatric Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrostomy tube (G-tube) insertion is a common procedure in pediatric patients requiring long-term enteral nutrition. While both surgical and endoscopic methods are widely used, comparative data on outcomes remain limited.
objectiveThis study compares complication rates, hospital stay duration, recovery time, and reintervention rates between surgical and endoscopic G-tube insertion in pediatric patients.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2020 to 2024, including 74 pediatric patients (35 surgical, 39 endoscopic). Data on demographics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsNo significant differences were found in baseline characteristics except for a higher prevalence of hypotonia/muscular dystrophy in the endoscopic group (15.38% vs. 0%, p=0.026). Postoperative weight improved significantly in the endoscopic group (p<0.001). Complication rates, including granuloma formation (14.29% vs. 25.64%, p=0.22), leakage (20% vs. 35.9%, p=0.13), and infection (2.86% vs. 10.26%, p=0.36), were comparable between surgical and endoscopic groups. Reintervention rates (5.71% vs. 5.13%, p>0.99) were similar.
conclusionBoth surgical and endoscopic G-tube insertion techniques demonstrated comparable overall complication and reintervention rates in this cohort. Although the endoscopic approach was associated with improved postoperative nutritional recovery and earlier feeding resumption, most differences between groups did not reach statistical significance and should be interpreted cautiously. Further prospective multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are needed to optimize patient selection and procedural outcomes.
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.