PRG With and Without Gastropexy

September 25, 2019 updated by: Ganesan Annamalai, University Health Network, Toronto

Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy With and Without Gastropexy: A Prospective Comparison

Percutaneous (through the skin) radiologic (x-ray guided) gastrostomy (to the stomach) (PRG) is a common procedure performed to help provide supplemental nutrition for those for who have difficulty swallowing their food. This population typically includes patients receiving radiation therapy for cancers of the mouth or throat, patients who have had a stroke or other neurologic disorders. It involves making a small incision in the skin on the belly to insert a feeding tube directly into the stomach. PRG has been well established as a safe and effective procedure for many years now. Although known to be safe, there is still debate regarding the best way to perform the procedure. Some doctors believe it is necessary to stitch the stomach wall against the wall of the belly before inserting the tube, this is called gastropexy. They argue that this decreases the risk of the tube being positioned incorrectly and prevents leakage of stomach content in the first few weeks after the procedure. Other doctors feel that these risks are very small and this step is not required as it can cause the patient more pain in the days following the procedure since the stomach is fixed against the body wall and cannot move naturally. To this day, the procedure is performed safely both ways, depending on the hospital.

The purpose of this research study is to compare these two methods and determine if one technique gives better results, meaning less pain and fewer complications for patients.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

When percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) first emerged as an alternative method to surgical or endoscopic techniques, gastropexy was considered an essential step. This consists of using sutures and "T-fasteners" to fix the anterior gastric wall to the anterior abdominal wall and many variations are described in the literature. It was postulated that this step is necessary to avoid tube misplacement and peritonitis caused by early leakage of gastric content around the site of tube insertion. It is still considered imperative in some groups of patients at high risk of gastric leakage (i.e. patients with ascites, steroid treatment, and/or severe malnourishment). However, in other patients its use has become subject of debate.

Experiments with animal models have shown no evidence of gastric leakage following insertion of a 14 French tube, even when the tube is subsequently removed and the defect left unrepaired. Furthermore, several groups have had success without the use of gastropexy and some have described complications caused by performing this step such as peristomal infection, increased post-procedural pain, persistent leakage, and gastrocutaneous fistulas. Other large series of patients who underwent gastrostomy with gastropexy did not experience gastropexy-related complications, further complicating the matter. To date, the guidelines for transabdominal gastrostomy published by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) acknowledge both techniques but have no official recommendation on the use of gastropexy reflecting the lack of clear evidence regarding advantage with or without its use.

The investigators hypothesize that the use of gastropexy for PRG does not significantly decrease complications.

The investigators also hypothesize that the use of gastropexy is associated with increased post procedural pain.

At the investigators' institution (University Health Network) PRG without gastropexy is regularly performed first-line for gastrostomy. There is a high volume of requests for PRG and thus establishing which method is superior will help to reduce the number of complications and revisions. In doing so, the investigators hope to be able to establish an optimal evidence-based protocol for PRG for future patients as well as improving patient safety and satisfaction.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

60

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

    • Ontario
      • Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 2C4
        • Recruiting
        • Toronto General Hospital - University Health Network
        • Contact:
          • Ganesan Annamalai, MB, BCh, BAO, FRCSI, FRCR
          • Phone Number: 3250 (416) 340-4800
        • Contact:
          • Ganesan.Annamalai@sinaihealthsystem.ca

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adults (age 18 years and older) meeting standard eligibility criteria for percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy
  • Dysphagia related to malignancy or surgery/radiation therapy
  • Able to appropriately understand and complete English questionnaires either independently or with the assistance of a translator

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Unable to provide informed consent
  • Unable or unwilling to complete the pre and post-procedure questionnaires
  • Dysphagia related to neurological deficits
  • Large volume of ascites
  • Prior partial gastrectomy
  • Long-term steroid use

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: OTHER
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: SINGLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Gastropexy
Percutaneous radiologic guided insertion of G-tube. The skin over the epigastrium is prepared and draped in sterile fashion. Midazolam and fentanyl are administered for conscious sedation. Lidocaine for local analgesia. The stomach is insufflated with air after insertion of an OG or NG tube. Two T-fasteners are inserted into the stomach approximately 4cm apart. A needle is inserted into the stomach and an Amplatz wire is then inserted into the stomach. The tract is dilated with an 18Fr peel away sheath. A 14 Fr balloon retention gastrostomy tube is inserted. The balloon is inflated and bolster set as appropriate. The gastropexy/T-fastener sutures are cut after one week.
Two T-fasteners for G-tube insertion (gastropexy).
EXPERIMENTAL: Non-Gastropexy
Percutaneous radiologic guided insertion of G-tube. The skin over the epigastrium is prepared and draped in sterile fashion. Midazolam and fentanyl are administered for conscious sedation. Lidocaine for local analgesia. The stomach is insufflated with air after insertion of an OG or NG tube. A needle is inserted into the stomach and an Amplatz wire is then inserted into the stomach. The tract is dilated with an 18Fr peel away sheath. A 14 Fr balloon retention gastrostomy tube is inserted. The balloon is inflated and bolster set as appropriate.
Insertion of G-tube in absence of T-fasteners.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain level as reported on 10-point Visual Analog Scale
Time Frame: Pre-procedure baseline measure, post-procedure (day 1) measure, and 30 day post-procedure measure
10-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable) with specific procedure-related questions, as outlined in the pre- and post-procedure questionnaire.
Pre-procedure baseline measure, post-procedure (day 1) measure, and 30 day post-procedure measure

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Complications
Time Frame: 30 days post-procedure follow-up.
Number of participants who experienced procedure-related complications (major and minor) in each arm will be assessed according to established criteria (ie SIR Adverse Event Classification).
30 days post-procedure follow-up.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

April 1, 2019

Primary Completion (ANTICIPATED)

November 11, 2019

Study Completion (ANTICIPATED)

November 11, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 20, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 25, 2019

First Posted (ACTUAL)

September 27, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

September 27, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 25, 2019

Last Verified

September 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

This is a single center trial. Only researchers at this site will have access to the participant data.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Gastrostomy

Clinical Trials on Gastropexy.

3
Subscribe