4.2 Article

Replacement of Dislodged Gastrostomy Tubes After Stoma Dilation in the Pediatric Emergency Department

期刊

WESTERN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 770-774

出版社

WESTJEM
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2017.3.31796

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: A dislodged gastrostomy tube (GT) is a common complaint that requires evaluation in the pediatric emergency department (ED) and, on occasion, will require stoma dilation to successfully replace the GT. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency that stoma dilation is required, the success rate of replacement, complications encountered, and the techniques used to confirm placement of the GT after dilation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical record review of children 0-18 years who presented to the pediatric ED from February 2013 through February 2015 with a dislodged GT that required stoma dilation by pediatric emergency physicians with serially increasing Foley catheter sizes prior to successful placement of the GT. Results: We reviewed a total of 302 encounters in 215 patients, with 97 (32%) of the encounters requiring stoma dilation prior to replacing a GT. The median amount of dilation was 2 French between the initial Foley catheter size and the final GT size. There was a single complication of a mal-positioned balloon that was identified at the index visit. No delayed complications were encountered. We performed confirmation of placement in all patients. The two most common forms of confirmation were aspiration of gastric contents (56/ 97 [58%]) followed by contrast radiograph in 39 (40%). Conclusion: The practice of serial dilation of a gastrostomy stoma site to allow successful replacement of a gastrostomy tube in pediatric patients who present to the ED with a dislodged gastrostomy tube is generally successful and without increased complication. All patients received at least one form of confirmation for appropriate GT placement with the most common being aspiration of gastric contents.

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

4.2
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