Cureus · 2026
A Comparative Study of Surgical and Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Insertion in Pediatric Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alshareef Talal, Alenazi Abdulmajeed, Qayyum Bilal, Alonazi Mohammad S, Alotaibi Abdullah M, Almohaidly Mohammed, Elmahmoud Mohamad, Alhudaif Jamal, Abduldaem Abdullah, Aljohany Mohanned, Alhebbi Homoud, Alhaffaf Faisal, Algubaisi Sarah, Albassam Khalid A, Alzahrani Mohammed, Alqahtani Hawazin S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gastrostomy 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.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares complication rates, hospital stay duration, recovery time, and reintervention rates between surgical and endoscopic G-tube insertion in pediatric patients.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: No 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.
CONCLUSION: Both 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.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares complication rates, hospital stay duration, recovery time, and reintervention rates between surgical and endoscopic G-tube insertion in pediatric patients.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: No 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.
CONCLUSION: Both 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.