4.1 Article

Size Matters: Early Gastrostomy Tube Dislodgment in Children

Journal

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2021.0352

Keywords

gastrostomy tube; early dislodgment; pediatrics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found significant differences in early dislodgment rates and patient age between 12F and 14F gastrostomy tubes. The data suggest potential limitations with the smaller balloon size of the 12F tubes, particularly in use with smaller children.
Background: Gastrostomy tube (g-tube) complications are typically minor and site related with major complications related to dislodgment before tract establishment. With the recent adoption of 12F g-tubes; size of tube has not been evaluated. There is limited research on the efficacy and dislodgment rates of 12 and 14F g-tubes within the early dislodgment window (<42 days postsurgery). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study from June 1, 2013 to May 25, 2020 was performed. A total of 888 patient encounters were identified, with a final data set of 835 being used for analysis. A subset of 21 patients was evaluated based on early dislodgment status. Fisher's exact test and Welch's two-sample test analyses were used to test for significance between groups (P < .05). Results: The early dislodgment rate is low at 2.5% (21/835). There was a significant impact of g-tube size on dislodgment rates. When evaluated by g-tube size, 12F g-tubes are nearly four times more likely to dislodge before 6 weeks than 14F g-tubes. In addition, the average age of 12F patients who dislodged early was significantly lower than that of the population for 14F patients. Conclusions: There is a significant difference in early dislodgment rate and age between the 12F g-tube compared with a 14F. These data suggest a trade-off of the smaller balloon in 12F g-tubes and potential for more limited use in our smallest children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available