胃造口术置管:球囊与缓冲的比较:一项回顾性横断面研究。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Zahra Beizavi, Mustafa Al-Ogaili, Sherief Ghozy, Aditya Khurana, Sadeer J Alzubaidi
{"title":"胃造口术置管:球囊与缓冲的比较:一项回顾性横断面研究。","authors":"Zahra Beizavi, Mustafa Al-Ogaili, Sherief Ghozy, Aditya Khurana, Sadeer J Alzubaidi","doi":"10.1002/ncp.11275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are used for gastric drainage, decompression, and feeding. Recent innovations enable bumper and balloon-type tube placement via transabdominal approach under guidance of fluoroscopy or sonography.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a single-center retrospective cohort study to evaluate the outcomes of balloon and bumper gastrostomy tube placement under guide of fluoroscopy and ultrasound. The total sample size was 470 consecutive patients. The eligibility criteria included all patients aged ≥18 years who underwent a balloon or bumper-type gastrostomy tube insertion for nutrition support in both the interventional radiology unit and at the bedside between 2017 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>This study revealed no significant differences between the two types of tubes in terms of time to tube replacement or requiring a gastrostomy tube. There was a positive correlation between the time that a patient has a gastrostomy tube and major complications (P = 0.005) and a positive correlation between number of tubes replaced and minor complications (P < 0.001). Both types of tubes were associated with low rates of complications. However, patients with a balloon tube were more likely to experience gastric-tube-related hospitalization/ED visits and require a >24-h hospital stay postoperation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings can help healthcare providers make informed decisions when selecting the appropriate type of tube for their patients to have more durability with less complication.</p>","PeriodicalId":19354,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The comparison of radiological gastrostomy tube placement: Balloon and bumper: A retropective cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Zahra Beizavi, Mustafa Al-Ogaili, Sherief Ghozy, Aditya Khurana, Sadeer J Alzubaidi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ncp.11275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are used for gastric drainage, decompression, and feeding. Recent innovations enable bumper and balloon-type tube placement via transabdominal approach under guidance of fluoroscopy or sonography.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a single-center retrospective cohort study to evaluate the outcomes of balloon and bumper gastrostomy tube placement under guide of fluoroscopy and ultrasound. The total sample size was 470 consecutive patients. The eligibility criteria included all patients aged ≥18 years who underwent a balloon or bumper-type gastrostomy tube insertion for nutrition support in both the interventional radiology unit and at the bedside between 2017 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>This study revealed no significant differences between the two types of tubes in terms of time to tube replacement or requiring a gastrostomy tube. There was a positive correlation between the time that a patient has a gastrostomy tube and major complications (P = 0.005) and a positive correlation between number of tubes replaced and minor complications (P < 0.001). Both types of tubes were associated with low rates of complications. However, patients with a balloon tube were more likely to experience gastric-tube-related hospitalization/ED visits and require a >24-h hospital stay postoperation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings can help healthcare providers make informed decisions when selecting the appropriate type of tube for their patients to have more durability with less complication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition in Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition in Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.11275\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.11275","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经皮内镜胃造口术(PEG)和经皮放射胃造口术(PRG)用于胃引流、减压和喂养。最近的创新使得在透视或超声的指导下,通过经腹入路放置缓冲和球囊型管。方法:本研究为单中心回顾性队列研究,评价在透视和超声指导下气囊式和缓冲式胃造口置管的效果。总样本量为470例连续患者。资格标准包括2017年至2022年期间在介入放射科和床边接受气囊或缓冲器式胃造口管插入以获得营养支持的所有年龄≥18岁的患者。结果:本研究显示两种类型的管在更换管的时间或需要胃造口管方面没有显著差异。患者置胃造口管时间与主要并发症呈正相关(P = 0.005),置胃造口管次数与次要并发症呈正相关(P < 0.001)。两种导管的并发症发生率均较低。然而,使用球囊管的患者更有可能经历胃管相关的住院/急诊科就诊,并且术后需要住院24小时。结论:这些发现可以帮助医疗保健提供者在为患者选择合适类型的管时做出明智的决定,以获得更持久和更少的并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The comparison of radiological gastrostomy tube placement: Balloon and bumper: A retropective cross-sectional study.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are used for gastric drainage, decompression, and feeding. Recent innovations enable bumper and balloon-type tube placement via transabdominal approach under guidance of fluoroscopy or sonography.

Method: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study to evaluate the outcomes of balloon and bumper gastrostomy tube placement under guide of fluoroscopy and ultrasound. The total sample size was 470 consecutive patients. The eligibility criteria included all patients aged ≥18 years who underwent a balloon or bumper-type gastrostomy tube insertion for nutrition support in both the interventional radiology unit and at the bedside between 2017 and 2022.

Result: This study revealed no significant differences between the two types of tubes in terms of time to tube replacement or requiring a gastrostomy tube. There was a positive correlation between the time that a patient has a gastrostomy tube and major complications (P = 0.005) and a positive correlation between number of tubes replaced and minor complications (P < 0.001). Both types of tubes were associated with low rates of complications. However, patients with a balloon tube were more likely to experience gastric-tube-related hospitalization/ED visits and require a >24-h hospital stay postoperation.

Conclusion: These findings can help healthcare providers make informed decisions when selecting the appropriate type of tube for their patients to have more durability with less complication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
128
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: NCP is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary publication that publishes articles about the scientific basis and clinical application of nutrition and nutrition support. NCP contains comprehensive reviews, clinical research, case observations, and other types of papers written by experts in the field of nutrition and health care practitioners involved in the delivery of specialized nutrition support. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信