Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26321115›Full record

ArticleSurgical oncology2015

The association between gastrostomy tube placement, poor post-operative outcomes, and hospital re-admissions in head and neck cancer patients.

Ashley C Mays, Mitchell Worley, Feras Ackall, Ralph D'Agostino, Joshua D Waltonen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley C MaysDepartment of Otolaryngology, Watlington 4th Floor, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Medical Center Blvd, Winston Salem, NC, 27157, USA. Electronic address: ashleycmays@gmail.com.
Mitchell WorleyWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: miworley@wakehealth.edu.
Feras AckallWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: fackall@wakehealth.edu.
Ralph D'AgostinoDepartment of Biostatistical Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: rdagosti@wakehealth.edu.
Joshua D WaltonenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: jwaltone@wakehealth.edu.
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

Tumor Tissue CoreP30CA012197 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Ruben A. Mesa · 1985 to 2026
$55.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA012197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesInvestigate the relationship of G-tube placement timing on post-operative outcomes.

participants908 patients underwent resection of head and neck upper aerodigestive tract tumors between 2007 and 2013. Patient charts were retrospectively screened for patient demographics, pre-operative nutrition variables, co-morbid conditions, Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging, surgical treatment type, and timing of G-tube placement. Exclusionary criteria included death within the first three months of the resection and resections performed solely for nodal disease. MAIN OUTCOMES: Post-surgical outcomes, including wound and medical complications, hospital re-admissions, length of inpatient hospital stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) time.

results793 surgeries were included: 8% of patients had G-tubes pre-operatively and 25% had G-tubes placed post-operatively. Patients with G-tubes (pre-operative or post-operative) were more likely to have complications and prolonged hospital care as compared to those without G-tubes (p < 0.001). Patients with pre-operative G-tubes had shortened length of stay (p = 0.007), less weight loss (p = 0.03), and fewer wound care needs (p < 0.0001), when compared to those that received G-tubes post-operatively. Those with G-tubes placed post-operatively had worse outcomes in all categories, except pre-operative BMI.

conclusionsThough having enteral access in the form of a G-tube at any point suggests a more high risk patient, having a G-tube placed in the pre-operative period may protect against poor post-operative outcomes. Post-operative outcomes can be predicted based on patient characteristics available to the physician in the pre-operative period.

Indexed as

Postoperative ComplicationsEnteral NutritionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrostomyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPatient ReadmissionPrognosisRetrospective StudiesGastrostomy tubeHead and neck cancerOutcomesRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID26321115
PMCPMC4669044
OpenAlexW1860337421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.