2017 Vol. 5 No. 3: 14 Research Article DOI: 10.21767/2254-6758.100082 Journal of Universal Surgery ISSN 2254-6758 1 iMedPub Journals ht tp://www.imedpub.com © Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License | This Article is Available in: www.jusurgery.com Abdulwahhab AlJubab, Ilhama A Jafarli, Tariq AlTokhais, Lubna Abdallah, Osama Mosallam, Reem AlJubab, Mohammed Bashir Salma and Nouri Ourfali Department of Pediatric Surgery, King Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia Corresponding author: Abdulwahhab AlJubab  aaljubab@kfmc.med.sa Head of Pediatric Surgery department, King Fahad Medical City, pediatric surgery, Saudi Arabia. Tel: 00966-11-2889999 Citation: AlJubab A, Jafarli IA, AlTokhais T, et al. Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes in Children: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Methods. J Univer Surg. 2017, 5:3. Received: June 09, 2017; Accepted: June 19, 2017; Published: June 25, 2017 Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes in Children: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Methods Abstract Background: Although gastrostomy tube placement in children is increasingly performed and laparoscopic gastrostomy tube insertons considered by many surgeons to be the “gold standard”, however, there is no defnitve data that proves the benefts of laparoscopic technique over the open. This study aimed to compare two methods and clinical outcomes between patents undergoing laparoscopic and open gastrostomy tube inserton A retrospectve study data was entered and analyzed through statstcal package SPSS version 22 conducted to identfy inpatent hospitalizatons for gastrostomy placements for the treatment of gastro esophageal refux disease, feeding intolerance and swallowing disorder (2007–2016) at King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The outcomes evaluated using ANOVA test comparing the indicatons for the procedure, concomitant diseases and postoperatve complicatons associated with both techniques. Because ANOVA is a data set that evaluates the mean signifcant diference between operatve methods and other study parameters, a single-insttuton retrospectve study was conducted in which each technique compared to the other during the same period. Outcome measures (insttutonal data) were used to compare rates of postoperatve complicatons in terms of leakage, ileus, nausea, diarrheae, pain afer feeding, high residual, granulaton tssue formaton and tube revision between the two cohorts. Results: Has been evaluated 180 patents with gastrostomy tube placement (94 open vs. 86 laparoscopic), 44 with concomitant fundoplicaton and with 3 diferent types of gastrostomy tubes used during the procedures. There were diferences in gender (male to female 1:2), but not in age distributon, or comorbidity between the two groups. Compared with open technique of gastrostomy placement, the postoperatve complicatons in terms of postoperatve nausea 20 (21.5%), pain afer feeding 6 (6.4%) and leakage 25 (26.6%) were more with open technique versus 4 (4.7%) p=0.006, 0 (0.0%) p=0.017 and 16 (18.6%) p=0.202 respectvely in laparoscopic technique. Concomitant fundoplicaton as more commonly performed for patents with neurological disorders in laparoscopic technique 29 (33.7%) vs. open 15 (16.0%) p=0.006. Postoperatve diarrheae was observed more in patents who underwent Mic-Key tube placement p 0.008, however length of the hospital stay was more afer Mic tube placement p=001. The insttutonal data included outcome of patents with neurological disorders who underwent gastrostomy tube placement 21 (60.0%) with sequel and 113 (80.3%) without sequel and neurological disorders p=0.015. Conclusion: Although the technical and clinical outcomes for open and laparoscopic tube placement appear comparable, laparoscopic technique is associated with shorter length of stay and fewer complicatons. Keywords: Gastrostomy tubes, Refux, leakage, Laparoscopy