ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Patient experience and resource use analysis of balloon-retained vs. disc-retained gastro-jejunal tubes in children.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. 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
purposeBuilding on our previous work demonstrating that balloon-retained gastro-jejunostomy tubes (BGJ) avoid complications unique to disc-retained devices but require more frequent replacement, we evaluated caregiver experience and healthcare resource use to better inform tube selection in children.
methodsFamilies whose children had experienced both Freka® percutaneous endoscopic gastro-jejunostomy (FPEGJ) and BGJ completed a paired questionnaire assessing nine experience domains (0-5 Likert-type scales) with free-text comments. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and comments underwent thematic analysis. A 24-month NHS resource-use model compared staged FPEGJ followed by planned BGJ conversion with primary laparoscopic BGJ insertion using 2026/27 NHS Payment Scheme tariffs.
resultsTwelve of thirteen eligible families responded(92.3%). Nine(75%) preferred BGJ and three had no preference. No questionnaire domain differed significantly, although BGJ showed trends towards greater comfort and easier daily care, while FPEGJ showed a trend towards less leakage. Families favoured BGJ because of its lower profile, avoidance of general anaesthesia (GA) for replacement and avoidance of buried bumper syndrome. Standard staged FPEGJ treatment cost £4,192 over 24 months compared with £6,024 for primary laparoscopic BGJ, saving £1,831(30.4%). Even with laparoscopic assistance, FPEGJ remained 22.1% less expensive. Routine BGJ exchanges were the principal cost driver.
conclusionsA staged FPEGJ-to-BGJ strategy appears to provide the best balance between caregiver experience and NHS resource use. However, disc-retained devices commit children to at least one future GA, the associated burden of which is not fully captured by cost analysis. BGJ with reliable 12-month durability may further reduce procedural burden and healthcare costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878879What 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.