A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Prospective randomized comparative study of low-profile balloon gastrostomy tubes in children. | LitMetric

Background: Supplemental enteral nutrition through gastrostomy tubes is well established in children, but prospective studies comparing different tubes remain lacking in this population. The study aimed at comparing different aspects related to the use of low-profile balloon gastrostomy tubes in children.

Materials And Methods: The authors prospectively studied the use of 2 tube types--tube A (MIC-Key gastrostomy tube; Ballard Medical Products, Draper, UT) and tube B (MINI One gastrostomy tube; Applied Medical Technology, Brecksville, OH)--in a cohort of children in a crossover study design. Children were randomly assigned to 1 tube type for 4 months, followed by the other tube type for the next 4 months. Patients were evaluated at enrollment and at 4 and 8 months, with monitoring phone calls at 2 and 6 months. Variables measured included caregiver satisfaction, tube-related complications, and device durability.

Results: Twenty-one patients were included in the study. Infection rate (range, 4.8%-5.0%) and overall leakage rate (range, 42.9%-50.0%) were similar in both groups. Trends were noted with other variables measured but without statistical significance. These included lower rates of formula leakage and granulation tissue growth and higher satisfaction scores with tube B and more favorable device durability with tube A.

Conclusion: Both low-profile balloon gastrostomy tubes performed well and had comparable caregiver satisfaction, complications, and overall device durability.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0884533612454301DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gastrostomy tubes
16
low-profile balloon
12
balloon gastrostomy
12
tube
8
gastrostomy tube
8
tube type
8
type months
8
variables measured
8
caregiver satisfaction
8
complications device
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!