Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement Using a T‐Fastener Gastropexy Device in Head and Neck and Esophageal Cancer Patients

Chadha, Krishdeep S.; Thatikonda, Chandana; Schiff, Michael; Nava, Hector; Sitrin, Michael D.

doi:10.1177/0884533610385350

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Techniques such as gastropexy using temporary sutures or T‐fasteners to secure the stomach to the abdominal wall until it affixes to the abdominal wall can help reduce potential for leakage into the peritoneum and aid in easier and safer tube replacement when needed 76 . ‐ 79 These devices must be monitored to be sure they are not causing pressure on the skin.…”

Section: Section 4 Enteral Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy

Boullata

Carrera²,

Harvey

et al. 2016

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

352

531

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a valuable clinical intervention for patients of all ages in a variety of care settings. Along with its many outcome benefits come the potential for adverse effects. These safety issues are the result of clinical complications and of process-related errors. The latter can occur at any step from patient assessment, prescribing, and order review, to product selection, labeling, and administration. To maximize the benefits of EN while minimizing adverse events requires that a systematic approach of care be in place. This includes open communication, standardization, and incorporation of best practices into the EN process. This document provides recommendations based on the available evidence and expert consensus for safe practices, across each step of the process, for all those involved in caring for patients receiving EN.

show abstract

Section: Section 4 Enteral Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy

Boullata

Carrera²,

Harvey

et al. 2016

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

352

531

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from the randomized trial, the 27 retrospective and 2 prospective case series are summarized in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tumor implantation following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for head and neck and oesophageal cancer: Review of the literature

Rowell

2019

Head & Neck

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Because of publication bias, there is uncertainty about the true incidence of tumor seeding or implantation in patients with head and neck or oesophageal cancer undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion. Methods In order to obtain a more reliable estimate of risk, a systematic review was undertaken. Randomized or non‐randomized studies and case reports were identified by electronic searching. A risk of bias assessment was carried out for each study. Results Ninety‐eight cases from 74 published case reports and 1 unpublished case were identified. Synchronous distant metastases were present in 37%. Analysis of case series (6192 patients) considered to carry a moderate risk of bias suggests an incidence of seeding after PEG insertion of 0.32%. Studies carrying a lower risk of bias indicate a risk of seeding closer to 1 in 2000. Conclusion The true risk of seeding after PEG insertion is probably less than 1 in 1000.

show abstract

“…T-fasteners are widely used for the placement of gastrostomy tubes [12,13]. More recently, the uses of T-fasteners has expanded and have been reportedly used for anterior chest wall elevation during a Nuss procedure [14], to prevent stent migration in tracheal obstruction [15], and to anchor a migrating inferior vena cava stent [16].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%