Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2891025403> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 44 of
44
with 100 items per page.
- W2891025403 abstract "Abstract Background In esophageal cancer treatment, nutrition by feeding tube has been demonstrated to improve patient tolerance of treatment, quality of life, and long term outcomes. The open gastrostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) push technique are procedures that avoid cancer cells seeding and also improve patient nutritional status. The aim of this study is to compare the results of the push PEG and open gastrostomy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Methods A retrospective study was analyzed in the advanced esophageal cancer patients who indicated and received feeding support between January 2016 and December 2017. Results 28 patients in push PEG and 36 patients in open gastrostomy presented the following comparative data: mean operative duration time shorter in push PEG (11.9 min) than open gastrostomy (35.1 min), less blood loss in push PEG (0.8 mL) than open gastrostomy (5.6 mL), less pain score in push PEG (2.4) than open gastrostomy (5.9) and shorter hospitalization in push PEG (1.8 days) than open gastrostomy (2.6 days). Both groups showed no readmission or 30 day mortality. The adverse events of open gastrostomy demonstrated higher than push PEG group. Conclusion Both push PEG and open gastrostomy were the safe options for advanced esophageal cancer patients indicating for enteral nutrition and to avoid cancer cell seeding. The push PEG demonstrated the effective minimally invasive procedure, was safe and with fewer complications. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest." @default.
- W2891025403 created "2018-09-27" @default.
- W2891025403 creator A5016408812 @default.
- W2891025403 date "2018-09-01" @default.
- W2891025403 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2891025403 title "PS02.134: COMPARISON OF PUSH PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC GASTROSTOMY WITH OPEN GASTROSTOMY IN ADVANCED ESOPHAGEAL CANCER PATIENTS" @default.
- W2891025403 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy089.ps02.134" @default.
- W2891025403 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
- W2891025403 type Work @default.
- W2891025403 sameAs 2891025403 @default.
- W2891025403 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2891025403 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2891025403 hasAuthorship W2891025403A5016408812 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C2777014482 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C2779742542 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C2780075904 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C54400483 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C10138342 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C121608353 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C126322002 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C141071460 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C162324750 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C2777014482 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C2778451229 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C2779742542 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C2780075904 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C54400483 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C61434518 @default.
- W2891025403 hasConceptScore W2891025403C71924100 @default.
- W2891025403 hasLocation W28910254031 @default.
- W2891025403 hasOpenAccess W2891025403 @default.
- W2891025403 hasPrimaryLocation W28910254031 @default.
- W2891025403 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2891025403 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2891025403 magId "2891025403" @default.
- W2891025403 workType "article" @default.