Differences in Durability, Dislodgement, and Other Complications With Use of Low-Profile Nonballoon Gastrostomy Tubes in Children.

Nutr Clin Pract

2 Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

Published: April 2017

Background: Nonballoon low-profile gastrostomy tubes (GTs) are used for enteral nutrition support in a subset of pediatric patients with feeding difficulties when use of balloon GTs is problematic. Different nonballoon low-profile tube types are available, but comparative studies are lacking.

Materials And Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing complications and outcomes between different low-profile nonballoon GTs at a pediatric tertiary care center over 10 years.

Results: We identified 43 patients with 160 tube placement procedures, including 93 (58%) BARD tubes (type A) and 67 (42%) Mini-ONE tubes (type B). Accidental tube dislodgment occurred exclusively with type B (33% vs 0%, P < .0001) with dislodgment occurring at a median of 54 days after placement. Type A GTs were more likely to be changed due to leakage (47% vs 8%, P < .0001). Minor gastrostomy site bleeding was more likely to be seen with type A tube changes (46% vs 7%, P < .0001). Patient sedation or site dilation was rarely needed in either group. Time to tube change was longer in the type B GTs (BARD) ( P = .016) with a median tube survival in the type A and type B groups at 432 and 284 days, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 1.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.99), but once confounders were accounted for, the effect of tube type was no longer statistically significant.

Conclusion: Our study shows that differences exist with use of various low-profile nonballoon GTs. This should be taken into consideration when counseling families about the most appropriate tube type for their children.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0884533616680356DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

low-profile nonballoon
12
type
10
gastrostomy tubes
8
nonballoon low-profile
8
tube
8
nonballoon gts
8
tubes type
8
type gts
8
tube type
8
gts
6

Similar Publications

A comparison of balloon and nonballoon gastrostomy tubes in children.

J Pediatr Surg

May 2020

Division of Pediatric General and Thoracic Surgery, IWK Health Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Electronic address:

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare primary outcomes following insertion of balloon and nonballoon gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes).

Methods: A retrospective chart review over a 5-year period comparing the need for emergency, radiologic, or operative interventions between balloon and nonballoon G-tube devices was performed.

Results: 145 patient charts were reviewed (46.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Differences in Durability, Dislodgement, and Other Complications With Use of Low-Profile Nonballoon Gastrostomy Tubes in Children.

Nutr Clin Pract

April 2017

2 Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

Background: Nonballoon low-profile gastrostomy tubes (GTs) are used for enteral nutrition support in a subset of pediatric patients with feeding difficulties when use of balloon GTs is problematic. Different nonballoon low-profile tube types are available, but comparative studies are lacking.

Materials And Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing complications and outcomes between different low-profile nonballoon GTs at a pediatric tertiary care center over 10 years.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

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!