Complication Rate of Percutaneous Balloon- Retention versus Locking-Loop Gastrostomy and Gastrojejunostomy Tube Insertion: A Comparison from a Canadian Tertiary Care Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to compare 30-day complications, procedure-related mortality, and overall mortality rates for de novo enteral feeding tube insertion with fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous balloon-retention versus traditional locking-loop tubes. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients who underwent fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy tube insertions at two tertiary care centers. We categorized complications based on the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice for Gastrointestinal Access. Factors including the indication for the procedure, the number of gastropexy anchors, and the tube size were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests, and the results were compared with patients who underwent locking loop insertions. Results A total of 118 patients underwent percutaneous balloon-retention gastrostomy (BRG) or gastrojejunostomy (BRGJ) tube insertions in 2018. These were compared with 559 adult patients who had locking loop insertions at the same institutions from 2011 to 2014. Minor and major complications were higher for the balloon-retention tubes for both BRG (minor: 40.8% vs 4.7%, p <0.001; major: 1.4% vs 1.2%, p =0.891) and BRGJ tubes (minor: 80.9% vs 11.8%, p <0.001; major: 12.8% vs 1.7%, p <0.001). Complications were lowest with two gastropexy anchors and highest with three anchors. The 12-F and 14-F balloon-retention tubes had similar complication rates. Although not statistically significant, the balloon-retention tubes were associated with higher procedure-related deaths (1.7% vs 0.7%, p =0.300) and all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 5.9%, p =0.171). Conclusion Percutaneous BRG or BRGJ tubes had significantly higher 30-day complication rates. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".