ArticleIntestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)
Evolution of gastrostomy tube management in a pediatric intestinal rehabilitation program.
Article in Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many children with intestinal failure (IF) have gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) for enteral nutrition. G-tubes are often placed at index admission and not removed until after parenteral nutrition (PN) is weaned off. This study aims to describe the evolution of G-tube management within an intestinal rehabilitation program that changed focus to prioritize oral feeding. Material and methods: This is a retrospective review of electronic medical records of pediatric patients in a regional multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation program between 2008 and 2024. Two distinct management eras coincided with increased emphasis on oral nutrition. Early G-tube closure (prior to PN cessation) and traditional G-tube closure (after PN cessation) cohorts were compared using t-tests. Results: Seventy-eight percent (n = 114) of children underwent G-tube placement at median age of 3 months; 75 % were performed during index admission. From 2008-2015, there were 16 G-tube closures (8 early, 8 traditional), representing 28 % of all G-tubes in this early era. From 2016-2024, there were 40 G-tube closures (23 early, 17 traditional), representing 70 % of all G-tubes in this later era. Most closures were performed surgically. Among children with early G-tube closure, 25 % attained enteral autonomy while oral intake and growth progressed. Conclusion: In an intestinal rehabilitation program with a renewed focus on oral feeding, more children underwent G-tube closure while dependent on PN and were still able to reach enteral autonomy. G-tube placement may not be necessary for all children with IF, and placement decisions should be made within a multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.