medigraphic.com

2005, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Cir Pediatr 2005; 12 (3)

Jean-Franco PT gastrostomy tube with fixation tip A new alternative

Jean-Aurelus P, Franco-Gutiérrez M, Guerra-Gallo I, Villalpando-Conchola R

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 150-161
PDF size: 529.94 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: To evaluate the new gastrostomy tube Jean Franco (JF) with fixation tip versus habitual urinary tube and normal fixations.
Material and Methods: A controled clinical trial was conducted in 23 patients whose ages range between 0 and 5 years. Randomly two groups were assigned: one with gastrostomy tube JF and another with gastrostomy with urinary tube. Analysis of variables such as sex, age, presence of dermal lesions or infection, abdominal distension, leaks, need of changing tubes, tube migration, increase diameter of gastrostomy, cost and wound care materials were done.
Results: When evaluating complications caused by JP versus Foleys tube we found that respectively for abdominal distension 0 and 75%, leaks 95 and 9.1 %, dermal lesions 27.3 vs. 100%, obstruction 83.3 vs. 18.2% and increased diameter 91.7 vs. 8.3% with statistics significance of p‹0.001, only local infection (0 vs. 41.7%) although significant had value of p=0.003 The monthly amount of wound care was 18,1 + 7.6 times more for habitual tube and was not required in JF tube. Evaluating cost and maintenance for both tubes: JF was 80 pesos vs. 305 + 113.7 pesos for habitual tube (p‹0.001). Conclusions: The use of JF tube offers clear advantages lowering complications, the need of changing tubes, and the number of wound care, which results in lowering overall costs.


REFERENCES

  1. 1 – Gauderer W.L Michael, Abrams S. Randel, Hammond H. Julie: Inicial experience with the changeable skin –level Port-valve. A new concept for long-term gastrointestina access. J Pediatr Surg 1998; 33: 73-5.

  2. 2- Dautle P. Melannie, Wilkinson T Ross, and Gauderer W.L Michael: Isolation and Identification of Biofilm Microorganisms From Silicone Gastrostomy Devices. J Pediatr Surg: 2003; 38: 216.

  3. 3 - Gauderer W.L Michael: Gastrostomy Button Conversion into a Combined Gastric and Jejunal acess Device: J Pediatr Surg 1999; 34: 202-3.

  4. 4 - Rudel Julie, Gauderer W.L Michael et al: Lipid Uptake by Silicone Enteral Access Feeding Devices: J Pediatr Surg 1998; 33: 880-4.

  5. 5 - Gauderer W.L Michael, Picha J. George, Izant J. Robert: The gastrostomy “Button” –A Simple, Skin –Level, Nonrefluxing Device for Long-Term Enteral Feedings: J Pediatr Surg 1984; 19: 803-5.

  6. 6 - Gauderer W.L Michael: Long term gastric access: Caveat medicus. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 44: 356-8.

  7. 7 - Haws EB, Sieber WK, Kiesewetter.WB: Complications of Tube gastrostomy in infant and children .15 year Review of 240 cases. Ann Surg 1966; 164: 284-90.

  8. 8 - Redo SF, Barnes W A: Gastrostomy with prosthesis, Surgery 1967; 61: 320-4.

  9. 9 - Gauderer MWL, Ponsky JL, and Izant RJ.Jr: Gastrostomy without laparotomy: A percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15:872-5.

  10. 10 - Gottlieb K. Leya J, Krus DM, ET al: Intraluminal fungal colonization of gastrostomy tubes. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 413-15.

  11. 11- Stringel Gustavo: Gastrostomy with Antireflux Properties. J Pediatr Surg 1990; 25: 1019-21.

  12. 12- Ware Russell, Vuksanaj Dila, and McGill Charles: aortogastrico fistula: A complication of tube Gastrostomy: J. Pediatr Surg 1989; 24: 1149–51.

  13. 13- Galea H, Marcus Mayell J, Margaret: Gastroduodenal Mucosal Intussusceptions Causing Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A complication of Gastrostomy Tubes: J Pediatr Surg 1988; 23: 980-1.

  14. 14- Gauderer WL, Michael, Olsen M. Margaret Et al: Feeding Gastrostomy Button: Experience and Recommendations: J Pediatr Surg 1988; 23: 24–28.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com