Abstract
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and nasogastric tubes (NGT) are routine
after resection and reconstruction of oral cancer. The selection of the most appropriate
method of feeding can be challenging, as both methods carry morbidity. This makes
correct selection paramount. The objectives of this retrospective review were to identify
the benefits and complications of feeding with PEG and NGT in patients with oral malignancy.
We retrospectively reviewed 144 patients who had undergone oral cancer resection and
reconstruction, to compare PEG and NGT feeding and to identify the key factors that
aid selection of the most appropriate feeding method. We used these factors to develop
the Key to Appropriate Replacement Enteral Nutrition (KAREN) scoring system. One hundred and twenty of the 144 patients were managed
with PEG, and of these, 9 used it for less than 28 days. The mean (range) duration of use was 13 (5–63) days, and 1.9 (1–5) tubes/patient
were used. The KAREN scoring system assigned the correct method of feeding in 92%
of cases. The scoring system requires prospective validation but could provide clinicians
with a tool to assist in a sometimes difficult decision.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Perioperative management of the head and neck cancer patient.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 305-313
- Enteral nutrition during the treatment of head and neck carcinoma: is a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube preferable to a nasogastric tube?.Cancer. 2000; 91: 1785-1790
- Prospective study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing (chemo)radiation.Head Neck. 2009; 31: 867-876
- Guidance on cancer services: improving outcomes in head and neck cancers. The manual.2004 (Available from: www.nice.org.uk)
- Nutritional support for adults. Oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition.2006 ([cited 16 May 2010]; Available from: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG32/Guidance/pdf/English)
- ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition—percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Clin Nutr. 2005; 24: 848-861
- Diagnosis and management of head and neck cancer. A national clinical guideline.2006 (Available from: www.sign.ac.uk)
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy at the time of tumour resection in advanced oral cancer.Oral Oncol. 2000; 36: 471-473
- Early postoperative care for free flap head and neck reconstructive surgery—a national survey of practice.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 47: 182-185
- An audit of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: reducing the incidence of peri-operative airway events by the introduction of a tumour assessment protocol.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009; 91: 249-254
- Early percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy nutrition in head and neck cancer patients.Acta Otolaryngol. 2004; 124: 847-850
- Misplacement of percutaneously inserted gastrostomy tube into the colon: report of 6 cases and review of the literature.J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2007; 31: 469-476
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients undergoing resection for oral tumors: a retrospective review of complications and outcomes.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 61: 1279-1284
- Advances in quality of life and symptom management for head and neck cancer patients.Curr Opin Oncol. 2009; 21: 242-247
- Patients experience with long-term percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding following primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer.Oral Oncol. 2007; 43: 499-507
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 10, 2012
Accepted:
November 24,
2011
Footnotes
☆Presented at the British Association of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting, Manchester, 2010.
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
