Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Szymski, G. X.
Right arrow Articles by Leef, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Szymski, G. X.
Right arrow Articles by Leef, J. A.

Radiology, Vol 205, 669-673, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Radiologically guided placement of pull-type gastrostomy tubes

GX Szymski, AN Albazzaz, B Funaki, JD Rosenblum, CA Hackworth, BW Zernich and JA Leef
Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

PURPOSE: To evaluate percutaneous placement of pull-type gastrostomy tubes that has traditionally necessitated endoscopic guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 1995 through March 1997, 63 pull- type gastrostomy tubes were placed in 64 patients. Retrograde catheterization of the esophagus was performed through the stomach. Then the gastrostomy tube was pulled through from the mouth into the stomach. RESULTS: Gastrostomy tube placement was successful in 63 (98%) of 64 patients in 65 attempts. One procedure was stopped when the patient reported chest pain after gastric insufflation, and a second placement attempt was initially unsuccessful. Major complications occurred in three (5%) patients: exit site infection necessitating tube removal (n = 2) and prolonged bleeding necessitating transfusion (n = 1). Minor complications occurred in six (9%) patients: failure of placement (n = 2), exit site infection (n = 1), leakage around the tube (n = 1), tube migration (n = 1), and inadvertent tube removal (n = 1). There were no cases of peritonitis, tract disruption, or gastrostomy- related death. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous placement of a pull-type gastrostomy tube was performed with a minimum risk of tract disruption and peritonitis. The tube was safely and effectively placed by radiologists.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
T. Tsukuda, T. Fujita, K. Ito, T. Yamashita, and N. Matsunaga
Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy Using Push-Type Gastrostomy Tubes with CT and Fluoroscopic Guidance
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 574 - 576.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. S. Shaw, M. A. Ampong, A. Rio, J. McClure, P. N. Leigh, and P. S. Sidhu
Entristar Skin-Level Gastrostomy Tube: Primary Placement with Radiologic Guidance in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Radiology, November 1, 2004; 233(2): 392 - 399.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. Funaki, R. Peirce, J. Lorenz, P. B. Menocci, J. D. Rosenblum, C. Straus, T. V. Ha, J. A. Leef, and G. X. Zaleski
Comparison of Balloon- and Mushroom-Retained Large-Bore Gastrostomy Catheters
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 359 - 362.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. Funaki, G. X. Zaleski, J. Lorenz, P. B. Menocci, A. N. Funaki, J. D. Rosenblum, C. Straus, and J. A. Leef
Radiologic Gastrostomy Placement: Pigtail- Versus Mushroom-Retained Catheters
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2000; 175(2): 375 - 379.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1997 by the Radiological Society of North America.