CC BY 4.0 · The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology 2024; 08(02): 105-111
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786829
Original Article

Complication Rate of Percutaneous Balloon-Retention versus Locking-Loop Gastrostomy and Gastrojejunostomy Tube Insertion: A Comparison from a Canadian Tertiary Care Centre

2   Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
1   Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Daniel Schep
3   Departement of Radiation Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Sandra Sabongui
2   Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sarah Krause
4   Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
David Hocking
1   Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Daniele Wiseman
1   Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations


Purpose The aim of this study is to compare 30-day complications, procedure-related mortality, and overall mortality rates for de novo enteral feeding tube insertion with fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous balloon-retention versus traditional locking-loop tubes.

Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients who underwent fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy tube insertions at two tertiary care centers. We categorized complications based on the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice for Gastrointestinal Access. Factors including the indication for the procedure, the number of gastropexy anchors, and the tube size were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests, and the results were compared with patients who underwent locking loop insertions.

Results A total of 118 patients underwent percutaneous balloon-retention gastrostomy (BRG) or gastrojejunostomy (BRGJ) tube insertions in 2018. These were compared with 559 adult patients who had locking loop insertions at the same institutions from 2011 to 2014. Minor and major complications were higher for the balloon-retention tubes for both BRG (minor: 40.8% vs 4.7%, p < 0.001; major: 1.4% vs 1.2%, p = 0.891) and BRGJ tubes (minor: 80.9% vs 11.8%, p < 0.001; major: 12.8% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001). Complications were lowest with two gastropexy anchors and highest with three anchors. The 12-F and 14-F balloon-retention tubes had similar complication rates. Although not statistically significant, the balloon-retention tubes were associated with higher procedure-related deaths (1.7% vs 0.7%, p = 0.300) and all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 5.9%, p = 0.171).

Conclusion Percutaneous BRG or BRGJ tubes had significantly higher 30-day complication rates. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate.

Publication History

Article published online:
12 June 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

  • References

  • 1 Lochs H, Dejong C, Hammarqvist F. et al; DGEM (German Society for Nutritional Medicine), ESPEN (European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition). ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition: gastroenterology. Clin Nutr 2006; 25 (02) 260-274
  • 2 Brett K, Argaez C. Gastrostomy versus Gastrojejunostomy and/or Jejunostomy Feeding Tubes: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Guidelines. Ottawa, ON:: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2018
  • 3 Kirby DF, Delegge MH, Fleming CR. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1995; 108 (04) 1282-1301
  • 4 Covarrubias DA, O'Connor OJ, McDermott S, Arellano RS. Radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy: review of potential complications and approach to managing the unexpected outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (04) 921-931
  • 5 Tamura A, Kato K, Suzuki M. et al. CT-guided percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy for patients with head and neck cancer: a retrospective evaluation in 177 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016; 39 (02) 271-278
  • 6 Vidhya C, Phoebe D, Dhina C, Jayne S, Robert F. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) versus radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG): a comparison of outcomes at an Australian teaching hospital. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2018; 23: 136-140
  • 7 Zener R, Istl AC, Wanis KN. et al. Thirty-day complication rate of percutaneous gastrojejunostomy and gastrostomy tube insertion using a single-puncture, dual-anchor technique. Clin Imaging 2018; 50: 104-108
  • 8 de Baere T, Chapot R, Kuoch V. et al. Percutaneous gastrostomy with fluoroscopic guidance: single-center experience in 500 consecutive cancer patients. Radiology 1999; 210 (03) 651-654
  • 9 Cantwell CP, Perumpillichira JJ, Maher MM. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy insertion in outpatients with head and neck cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19 (04) 571-575
  • 10 Inaba Y, Yamaura H, Sato Y. et al. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy in patients with malignant pharyngoesophageal obstruction. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2013; 43 (07) 713-718
  • 11 Deurloo EE, Schultze Kool LJ, Kröger R, van Coevorden F, Balm AJ. Percutaneous radiological gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001; 27 (01) 94-97
  • 12 Ryan JM, Hahn PF, Boland GW, McDowell RK, Saini S, Mueller PR. Percutaneous gastrostomy with T-fastener gastropexy: results of 316 consecutive procedures. Radiology 1997; 203 (02) 496-500
  • 13 Itkin M, DeLegge MH, Fang JC. et al; Society of Interventional Radiology, American Gastroenterological Association Institute, Canadian Interventional Radiological Association, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe. Multidisciplinary practical guidelines for gastrointestinal access for enteral nutrition and decompression from the Society of Interventional Radiology and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, with endorsement by Canadian Interventional Radiological Association (CIRA) and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE). Gastroenterology 2011; 141 (02) 742-765
  • 14 Funaki B, Peirce R, Lorenz J. et al. Comparison of balloon- and mushroom-retained large-bore gastrostomy catheters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177 (02) 359-362
  • 15 Heiser M, Malaty H. Balloon-type versus non-balloon-type replacement percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: which is better?. Gastroenterol Nurs 2001; 24 (02) 58-63
  • 16 Busch JD, Herrmann J, Adam G, Habermann CR. Radiologically inserted gastrostomy: differences of maintenance of balloon- vs. loop-retained devices. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51 (12) 1423-1428
  • 17 Patel NR, Bailey S, Tai E. et al. Randomized controlled trial of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy performed with and without gastropexy: technical success, patient-reported outcomes and safety. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2021; 44 (07) 1081-1088
  • 18 Thornton FJ, Fotheringham T, Haslam PJ, McGrath FP, Keeling F, Lee MJ. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with and without T-fastener gastropexy: a randomized comparison study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2002; 25 (06) 467-471
  • 19 Kim JW, Song HY, Kim KR, Shin JH, Choi EK. The one-anchor technique of gastropexy for percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy: results of 248 consecutive procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19 (07) 1048-1053
  • 20 Alghamdi N, Abdulrahman S, Alzahrani Y. et al. Percutaneous image-guided gastrostomy insertion with and without gastropexy. Arab J Intervent Radiol 2020; 4: 107-110