A Retrospective Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic and Radiologic Gastrostomy Tube Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) versus percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG). Methods: A retrospective review of 70 health records evaluated: the indications for the procedure, technical success rate, complications during hospitalization (wound infections, bleeding, perforation, and death), length of hospital stay and death before discharge. Results: 70 randomly selected patients with gastrostomies had a chart review: N = 30 for PEG and N = 40 for PRG. PEG patients had a mean age of 71 ± 15 y; 56% were male. PRG patients had a mean age of 67 ± 18 y; 63% were male. Major co-morbidities in the study population were: cardiac diseases 37%, pulmonary diseases 30%, hypertension 53%, diabetes 23% and neuromuscular diseases 77%. The mean length of hospitalization was 35 ± 27 days. The indications for gastrostomy feeding were: 74% for neurological disorders, 18.6% for head and neck cancer; and 7.4% for dysphagia or other reasons. Technical success was similar for PEG and PRG groups (93.3% vs. 92.5%, respectively). Early complications occurred in 10% of PEG group vs. 12.5% PRG and (P= 0.633). Two patients had GI bleed and required endoscopic intervention. 3 had bowel perforation and another 3 wound bleeding. Wound infection was more frequent in PEG group than PRG group (10% vs. 7.5% respectively; P= 0.711). Late complications were more common in PRG group than PEG group (10% vs. 0%; P= 0.204) including GI bleed in 2 patients, wound bleed in 1 and tube displacement in another. Incidental endoscopic abnormalities, an advantage of the endoscopic method, were identified in 9 patients (30%) of the PEG group. Seven had PUD; 1 had an esophageal ulcer, and another had a hiatus hernia. No procedure-related mortality occurred either group. 10% of the study group died for reasons other than the gastrostomy during the same hospital admission. Conclusion: Percutaneous gastrostomy, whether placed endoscopically or radiologically, is a quite safe and effective method for enteral feeding. The radiologic method of insertion however had a modest increase in complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".