Suppr超能文献

经皮放射学、外科内镜及经皮内镜胃造口术/胃空肠造口术:对比研究与成本分析

Percutaneous radiologic, surgical endoscopic, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy: comparative study and cost analysis.

作者信息

Barkmeier J M, Trerotola S O, Wiebke E A, Sherman S, Harris V J, Snidow J J, Johnson M S, Rogers W J, Zhou X H

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 550 N. University Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46202-5253, USA.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1998 Jul-Aug;21(4):324-8. doi: 10.1007/s002709900269.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the results and costs of three different means of achieving direct percutaneous gastroenteric access.

METHODS

Three groups of patients received the following procedures: fluoroscopically guided percutaneous gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy (FPG, n = 42); percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy (PEG, n = 45); and surgical endoscopic gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy (SEG, n = 34). Retrospective review of the medical records was performed to evaluate indications for the procedure, procedure technical success, and outcome. Estimated costs were compared for each of the three procedures, using a combination of charges and materials costs.

RESULTS

Technical success was greater for FPG and SEG (100% each) than for PEG (84%, p = 0.008 vs FPG and p = 0.02 vs SEG). All patients (n = 7) who failed PEG subsequently underwent successful FPG. Success in placing a gastrojejunostomy was 91% for FPG, and estimated at 43% for PEG and 0 for SEG. Complications did not differ in frequency among groups. For gastrostomy, the average cost per successful tube was lowest in the PEG group ($1862, p = 0.02); FPG averaged $1985, and SEG $3694. SEG costs significantly more than FPG or PEG (p = 0.0001). For gastrojejunostomy, FPG averaged $2201, PEG $3158, and SEG $3045.

CONCLUSION

Technical success for gastrostomy is higher for FPG and SEG than PEG. Though PEG is the least costly procedure, the difference is modest compared with FPG. For gastrojejunostomy, FPG offers the highest technical success rate and lowest cost. Due to high costs associated with the operating room, SEG should be reserved for those patients undergoing a concurrent surgical procedure.

摘要

目的

比较三种不同实现直接经皮胃肠造口术的方法的结果和成本。

方法

三组患者接受了以下操作:透视引导下经皮胃造口术/空肠造口术(FPG,n = 42);经皮内镜下胃造口术/空肠造口术(PEG,n = 45);以及手术内镜下胃造口术/空肠造口术(SEG,n = 34)。对病历进行回顾性审查,以评估手术指征、手术技术成功率和结果。使用收费和材料成本相结合的方式比较三种手术各自的估计成本。

结果

FPG和SEG的技术成功率(均为100%)高于PEG(84%,与FPG相比p = 0.008,与SEG相比p = 0.02)。所有PEG失败的患者(n = 7)随后均成功接受了FPG。FPG放置空肠造口术的成功率为91%,PEG估计为43%,SEG为0。各组并发症发生率无差异。对于胃造口术,PEG组每根成功置管的平均成本最低(1862美元,p = 0.02);FPG平均为1985美元,SEG为3694美元。SEG的成本显著高于FPG或PEG(p = 0.0001)。对于空肠造口术,FPG平均为2201美元,PEG为3158美元,SEG为3045美元。

结论

FPG和SEG进行胃造口术的技术成功率高于PEG。虽然PEG是成本最低的手术,但与FPG相比差异不大。对于空肠造口术,FPG的技术成功率最高且成本最低。由于与手术室相关的成本较高,SEG应仅用于同时进行外科手术的患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验