4.4 Article

The Importance of the ileocecal valve and colon in achieving intestinal independence in infants with short bowel syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 117-121

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.09.028

关键词

Intestinal failure; Enteral autonomy; Ileocecal valve; Colon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preservation of the ileocecal valve (ICV) is associated with a shorter duration of parenteral nutrition (PN) support in infants with short bowel syndrome (SBS), while the colon does not play a significant role. Small bowel length is a positive predictor of enteral autonomy.
Purpose: Infants with short bowel syndrome (SBS) wean from parenteral nutrition (PN) support at variable rates. Small bowel length is a predictor, but the importance of the ileocecal valve (ICV) and colon are unclear. We aim to determine if the ICV and/or colon predict enteral autonomy. Methods: Infants from a single intestinal rehabilitation program were retrospectively reviewed. Etiology of SBS, intestinal anatomy, and duration of nutritional support were collected for three years. The primary outcome was time to full enteral nutrition. ANCOVA and Cox proportional hazards model were used, with p < 0.05 significant. Results: 55 infants with SBS were included. After accounting for the effect of small bowel, PN duration was shorter for infants with the ICV compared to those without (mean 218 vs. 538 days, p = 0.003), and had a more significant effect on infants with <50% of small bowel. Increased small bowel length was a positive predictor of weaning. Patients with <50% of colon spent less time on PN with the ICV, compared to without (mean 220 vs 715 days, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Preservation of the ICV was associated with shorter duration of PN support, while colon was not. Small bowel length is a positive predictor of enteral autonomy. Level of Evidence: Level III retrospective comparative study Type of Study: Retrospective review (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据