AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Levine, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Javors, B. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Levine, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Javors, B. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 164, 347-351, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Imaging of percutaneous tube gastrostomies: spectrum of normal and abnormal findings

CD Levine, B Handler, SR Baker, M Mohit-Tabatabai, R Wachsberg, MZ Simmons, K Cho and BR Javors
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark 07103.

Enteral alimentation is a crucial component of care for the malnourished patient who cannot eat. Until recently, long-term alimentation was delivered through nasogastric tubes or gastrostomy tubes placed at surgery. In the past few years, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has almost completely supplanted these traditional methods. PEG is a safer and better-tolerated procedure. The advantages of PEG over nasogastric tubes include greater social acceptance and improved cosmetic appearance, increased ease of feedings, and decreased nasal alar deformities and gastroesophageal reflux. Complications are less common with PEG than with open gastrostomy but still occur in as many as 15% of cases [1-3]. Percutaneous gastrostomies performed using fluoroscopic guidance have complications in approximately 10% of cases [4]. Despite a rapid increase in the use of percutaneous gastrostomies and their placement by radiologists [4], few published reports have described imaging findings after the placement of such tubes. This pictorial essay illustrates a spectrum of normal and abnormal imaging findings observed with the use of PEG tubes, including tube migration and misplacement, infection, tumor seeding along the PEG tube track, and a variety of gastric wall defects and pseudomasses.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JPEN J Parenter Enteral NutrHome page
R. Friedmann, H. Feldman, and M. Sonnenblick
Misplacement of Percutaneously Inserted Gastrostomy Tube Into the Colon: Report of 6 Cases and Review of the Literature
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 2007; 31(6): 469 - 476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. J. Pickhardt, C. A. Rohrmann Jr., and M. J. Cossentino
Stomal Metastases Complicating Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: CT Findings and the Argument for Radiologic Tube Placement
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 735 - 739.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
T. E. Finucane, C. Christmas, and K. Travis
Tube Feeding in Patients With Advanced Dementia: A Review of the Evidence
JAMA, October 13, 1999; 282(14): 1365 - 1370.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.