Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes in Children: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Methods

Abdulwahhab AlJubab*, Ilhama A Jafarli, Tariq AlTokhais, Lubna Abdallah, Osama Mosallam, Reem AlJubab, Mohammed Bashir Salma and Nouri Ourfali

Department of Pediatric Surgery, King Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author:
Abdulwahhab AlJubab
Head of Pediatric Surgery department, King
Fahad Medical City, pediatric surgery
Saudi Arabia.
Tel: 00966-11-2889999
E-mail: aaljubab@kfmc.med.sa

Received date: June 09, 2017; Accepted date: June 19, 2017; Published date: June 25, 2017

Citation: AlJubab A, Jafarli IA, AlTokhais T, et al. Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes in Children: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Methods. J Univer Surg. 2017, 5:3. doi: 10.21767/2254-6758.100082

 
Visit for more related articles at Journal of Universal Surgery

Abstract

Background: Although gastrostomy tube placement in children is increasingly performed and laparoscopic gastrostomy tube insertions considered by many surgeons to be the “gold standard”, however, there is no definitive data that proves the benefits of laparoscopic technique over the open. This study aimed to compare two methods and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic and open gastrostomy tube insertion A retrospective study data was entered and analyzed through statistical package SPSS version 22 conducted to identify inpatient hospitalizations for gastrostomy placements for the treatment of gastro esophageal reflux disease, feeding intolerance and swallowing disorder (2007–2016) at King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The outcomes evaluated using ANOVA test comparing the indications for the procedure, concomitant diseases and postoperative complications associated with both techniques. Because ANOVA is a data set that evaluates the mean significant difference between operative methods and other study parameters, a single-institution retrospective study was conducted in which each technique compared to the other during the same period. Outcome measures (institutional data) were used to compare rates of postoperative complications in terms of leakage, ileus, nausea, diarrheae, pain after feeding, high residual, granulation tissue formation and tube revision between the two cohorts.

Results: Has been evaluated 180 patients with gastrostomy tube placement (94 open vs. 86 laparoscopic), 44 with concomitant fundoplication and with 3 different types of gastrostomy tubes used during the procedures. There were differences in gender (male to female 1:2), but not in age distribution, or comorbidity between the two groups. Compared with open technique of gastrostomy placement, the postoperative complications in terms of postoperative nausea 20 (21.5%), pain after feeding 6 (6.4%) and leakage 25 (26.6%) were more with open technique versus 4 (4.7%) p=0.006, 0 (0.0%) p=0.017 and 16 (18.6%) p=0.202 respectively in laparoscopic technique. Concomitant fundoplication as more commonly performed for patients with neurological disorders in laparoscopic technique 29 (33.7%) vs. open 15 (16.0%) p=0.006. Postoperative diarrheae was observed more in patients who underwent Mic-Key tube placement p 0.008, however length of the hospital stay was more after Mic tube placement p=001. The institutional data included outcome of patients with neurological disorders who underwent gastrostomy tube placement 21 (60.0%) with sequel and 113 (80.3%) without sequel and neurological disorders p=0.015.

Conclusion: Although the technical and clinical outcomes for open and laparoscopic tube placement appear comparable, laparoscopic tech

Keywords

Gastrostomy tubes, Reflux, leakage, Laparoscopy

Introduction

Gastrostomy tube placement in children remains one of the interventions performed by surgeons, gastrointestinal endoscopists and interventional radiologists. 3 single-center retrospective reviews have been conducted which revealed different outcomes following open, percutaneous endoscopic and laparoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion in children, reporting varying results [1]. Gastrostomy feeding tube placement in children is associated with a high frequency of adverse events. This study sought to preoperatively estimate postoperative adverse events in children undergoing gastrostomy feeding tube placement [2].

Four different technical approaches can be employed for gastrostomy tubes insertion, using one of: surgically the Stamm or open technique (OPEN), the percutaneous-endoscopic approach (PEG), guided by interventional-radiology (IRG) or by laparoscopic (LAP) minimally invasive surgery. The original description of the surgical technique of placing a gastrostomy tube was provided in 1984 by Stamm. The placement of a gastrostomy tube in a pediatric patient often represents a crucial moment for the child, his/her family and the medical team providing care. The implications of the procedure resonate for years to follow as care plans shift to outpatient management and nutritional needs [3]. One of the major advantages of the addition of laparoscopy in comparison to a percutaneous endoscopic approach is the improved visualization of the abdominal cavity, which aids in minimizing the risk of injury of the surrounding structures [4]. Also surgical gastrostomy insertion in children <1 year of age yielded the greatest increase in number over the last years [5].

Numerous studies have shown that laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement is a relatively simple and safe alternative to standard open surgical technique or percutaneous endoscopic management because it obviates the need for prolonged hospital stay and lessens the complications rate. In a pooled analysis of gastrostomy tube insertions, the rates of technical success and clinical effectiveness in laparoscopic versus percutaneous techniques as well as complication rates after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies were reported to be greater than 77.4% [6]. Because all clinical studies were from single centers and included a small cohort of patients, the general applicability of these data is debatable.

The objectives of the current study were to compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications at a patient level by conducting a single-institution retrospective study for patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgical gastrostomy tube insertion.

Materials and Methods

This study was executed in two parts. First, a retrospective study was conducted to evaluate patient outcomes at an institutional level. Second, data was used to evaluate length of stay for patients who underwent laparoscopic or open gastrostomy tube insertion.

Data source

A retrospective analysis was conducted using the 2007–2016 data in King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The database contains complete inpatient hospitalization records for the entire hospital. These claims report patient demographic information such as age, sex, diagnosis, and comorbidities. In addition, information regarding the hospitalization is provided including length of stay, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic procedures.

Patient population

The study population consisted of all unique hospitalization claims for the placement of a laparoscopic or open gastrostomy tube insertion procedure. Claims were included based on the primary diagnosis and procedure. A retrospective analysis was conducted with consecutive patients (>1 years of age) who underwent surgical, open versus laparoscopic technique for management of gastro esophageal reflux disease, feeding intolerance and swallowing disorder. The inclusion criteria specified patients older than 1 year old with an underlying diagnosis of gastro esophageal reflux disease, feeding intolerance or swallowing disorder who had undergone procedures for relief of the relative condition. The exclusion criteria ruled out patients who responded to conservative treatment with ant reflux medications with normal swallowing pattern, patients with postoperative granulation tissue at the tube insertion site as the rate it was identical in both techniques and children below 1 year old.

For each patient treated with open gastrostomy tube insertion one patient who underwent laparoscopic approach of the same procedure were matched by an independent observer for the following variables: leakage, ileus, nausea, diarrhea, pain after feeding, high residual, and tube revision. The medical records of all the study subjects were reviewed for patient demographics, clinical presentation, comorbidities, laboratory investigations, and radiologic investigations

Outcome Measures

The rates for treatment success, complications, and reinterventions were compared as well as the length of the post procedure hospital stay between each treatment method

Open Stamm gastrostomy tube insertion

Incision performed through a small (6-8 cm) upper midline incision. The abdominal cavity is entered with care taken to take down any adhesions to the inner abdominal wall with gentle traction. Babcock clamps are used to grasp the anterior stomach wall in the mid to slightly distal stomach and to elevate it into the wound. A circular purse-string suture is placed with a diameter of 1.5-2.0 cm using a 2-0 or 3-0 suture with the ends left untied. A concentric purse-string of 2-0 or 3-0 silk is then placed just outside of the first purse-string with the ends left untied. A small opening is made in the serosa of the stomach in the center of the two concentric purse-string sutures. A 14-18 French Foley balloon catheter is then placed into the stomach through the just made opening.

Laparoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion

Contraindications to laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement included those who cannot tolerate pneumoperitoneum (severe pulmonary or cardiac disease), active skin infection, acute illness, or suboptimal treatment of chronic illness as this is not an emergent or urgent procedure. An incision is made in the umbilicus and a 3-5 mm port is placed. Another 3 mm stab incision may be made in the right upper quadrant or for further dissection/retraction. The stomach is insufflated with air. An appropriate place on the stomach is selected as the gastrostomy tube site was two thirds from the gastro esophageal junction to the pylorus. Care was taken to ensure that the gastrostomy tube is not too close to the pylorus as the balloon on the tube can case pyloric obstruction. The stomach is grasped with the locking grasper in the location where the gastrostomy tube is to be placed. Two securing sutures are then placed which will secure the stomach to the anterior abdominal wall. The gastrostomy tube was then placed between these two sutures. After the gastrostomy tube was in place, secured in place with a dressing.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed using statistical package Chisquare/ Fisher’s exact test according to whether the cell expected frequency is smaller than 5 and it was used to determine the significant relationship among categorical variables.

Institutional data

A single-institution retrospective case–control study was conducted in which each patient who underwent a laparoscopic placement of gastrostomy tube was matched with one who underwent open technique during the same period (2007– 2016). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22. All Categorical variables gender, nationality, previous history etc. were presented as numbers and percentages. Continuous variables age, weight, operative time, albumin level etc. were expressed as Mean ± Standard Deviation. Independent sample t-test/ANOVA was applied to evaluate the mean significant difference between outcome and other study parameters. A chisquare test was used to compare the proportions of basic clinical characteristics of the patients (Table 1) and outcome measures (Table 2) across the two groups.

Variables Categories n (n%)
Gender Male 111 (61.7%)
Female 69 (38.3%)
Nationality Saudi 177 (98.3%)
Non - Saudi 3 (1.7%)
Previous Abnormal Surgery Yes 6 (3.3%)
No 174 (96.7%)
Concomitant Fundoplication Yes 44 (24.4%)
No 136 (75.6%)
Indication of the procedure GERD 51 (28.3%)
Feeding Intolerance 6 (3.3%)
Swallowing disorder 40 (22.2%)
More than one indications 83 (46.1%)
Procedure type Open 94 (52.2%)
Laparoscopic 86 (47.8%)
Neurological disorder Yes 139 (77.2%)
No 41 (22.8%)
ASA Status ASAI 11 (6.1%)
ASA II 62 (34.4%)
ASAIII 106 (58.9%)
ASAE 1 (0.6%)
Type of GT used Foley Cath 113 (62.8%)
Mickey Tube 56 (31.1%)
Mic Tube 11 (6.1%)
Post-Operative Complications Yes 59 (32.8%)
No 121 (67.2%)
ileus Yes 7 (3.9%)
No 173 (96.1%)
diarrhea Yes 27 (15.0%)
No 153 (85.0%)
nausea Yes 24 (13.3%)
No 156 (86.7%)
pain after feeding Yes 6 (3.3%)
No 174 (96.7%)
leakage Yes 41 (22.8%)
No 139 (77.2%)
granuloma Yes 151 (83.8%)
No 29 (16.1%)
tube revision Yes 10 (5.6%)
No 170 (94.4%)
high residual Yes 13 (7.2%)
No 167 (92.8%)
Outcome Death 5 (2.8%)
Full Recovery 140 (77.8%)
Recovery with sequelae 35 (19.4%)

Table 1: Basic Clinical characteristics of Patients (n=180)

Variables Categories Procedure type P-value
Open Laparoscopic
Gender Male 61 (64.9%) 50 (58.1%) 0.352
Female 33 (35.1%) 36 (41.9%)  
Age (months)   35.40 ± 3.62 40.85 ± 4.28 0.333
Weight (kg)   9.80 ± 5.37 10.28 ± 5.77 0.582
Nationality Saudi 94 (100.0%) 83 (96.5%) 0.068
Non - Saudi 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.5%)  
Previous Abnormal Surgery Yes 4 (4.3%) 2 (2.3%) 0.471
No 90 (95.7%) 84 (97.7%)  
Concomitant Fundoplication Yes 15 (16.0%) 29 (33.7%) *0.006
No 79 (84.0%) 57 (66.3%)  
Indication of the procedure GERD 24 (25.5%) 27 (31.4%) 0.408
Feeding Intolerance 5 (5.3%) 1 (1.2%)  
Swallowing disorder 21 (22.3%) 19 (22.1%)  
More than one indications 44 (46.8%) 39 (45.3%)  
Operative Time 84.11 ± 9.45 90.18 ± 10.30 0.665  
Length of hospital stay 3.74 23.48±0.95 *0.005  
 
Feeding Start (On day) 2.18 ± 0.94 0.94 ± 1.16 0.175  
Neurological disorder Yes 68 (72.3%) 71 (82.6%) 0.103
No 26 (27.7%) 15 (17.4%)  
Albumin Level 24.52 ± 18.45 27.34 ± 18.93 0.402  
ASA Status ASAI 5 (5.3%) 6 (7.0%) 0.767
ASA II 32 (34.0%) 30 (34.9%)  
ASAIII 56 (59.6%) 50 (58.1%)  
ASAE 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)  
Granuloma Yes 80(82.5%) 71 (78.9%) 0.113
No 14 (14%) 15 (21.1%)  
Type of GT used Foley Cath 66 (70.2%) 47 (54.7%) 0.056
Mickey Tube 25 (26.6%) 31 (36.0%)  
Mic Tube 3 (3.2%) 8 (9.3%)  

Table-2: Association between type of procedure and clinical characteristics of the patient.

Results

A total of 180 patients with gastrostomy tube placement (94 open vs. 86 laparoscopic), 44 with concomitant fundoplication and with 3 different types of gastrostomy tubes used during the procedures. The age, gender, and comorbidities of the reported patients in association with the type of the tubes and outcome of the study in both cohorts are shown in (Tables 3 and 4).

    Outcome of the study  
    Death Full Recovery Recovery P - Value
Variables Parameters   with sequelae    
Gender Male 0 (0.0%) 88 (62.9%) 23 (65.7%) *0.015
  Female 5 (100.0%) 52 (37.1%) 12 (34.3%)  
Age (months) 48.00 ± 30.1 40.27 ± 3.18 27.52 ± 5.01 0.164  
Weight (kg) 5.3 ± 2.46 10.28 ± 0.47 9.76 ± 1.05 0.138  
Nationality Saudi 5 (100.0%) 137 (97.9%) 35 (100.0%) 0.647
  Non - Saudi 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%)  
Previous Abnormal Surgery Yes 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.6%) 1 (2.9%) 0.895
  No 5 (100.0%) 135 (96.4%) 34 (97.1%)  
Concomitant Fundoplication Yes 0 (0.0%) 39 (27.9%) 5 (14.3%) 0.108
  No 5 (100.0%) 101 (72.1%) 30 (85.7%)  
Indication of the procedure GERD 0 (0.0%) 38 (27.1%) 13 (37.1%) 0.277
  Feeding Intolerance 0 (0.0%) 6 (4.3%) 0 (0.0%)  
  Swallowing disorder 2 (40.0%) 34 (24.3%) 4 (11.4%)  
  More than one indications 3 (60.0%) 62 (44.3%) 18 (51.4%)  
Operative Time 60.00 ± 0.1 89.44 ± 7.96 76.75 ± 13.91 0.683  
Feeding Start (On day) 2.00 ± 0.3 2.03 ± 1.06 2.29 ± 1.14 0.595  
Neurological disorder Yes 5 (100.0%) 113 (80.7%) 21 (60.0%) * 0.015
  No 0 (0.0%) 27 (19.3%) 14 (40.0%)  
Albumin Level 26.6 ± 9.4 25.29 ± 1.87 28.4 ± 4.01 0.789  
ASA Status ASAI 0 (0.0%) 9 (6.4%) 2 (5.7%) 0.39
  ASA II 2 (40.0%) 42 (30.0%) 18 (51.4%)  
  ASAIII 3 (60.0%) 88 (62.9%) 15 (42.9%)  
  ASAE 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)  
Post-Operative Complications Yes 5 (100.0%) 40 (28.6%) 14 (40.0%) * 0.002
  No 0 (0.0%) 100 (71.4%) 21 (60.0%)  
ileus Yes 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0.759
  No 5 (100.0%) 135 (96.4%) 33 (94.3%)  
diarrhea Yes 0 (0.0%) 23 (16.4%) 4 (11.4%) 0.483
  No 5 (100.0%) 117 (83.6%) 31 (88.6%)  
nausea Yes 0 (0.0%) 16 (11.4%) 8 (22.9%) 0.138
  No 5 (100.0%) 124 (88.6%) 27 (77.1%)  
pain after feeding Yes 2 (40.0%) 2 (1.4%) 2 (5.7%) * <0.001
  No 3 (60.0%) 138 (98.6%) 33 (94.3%)  
leakage Yes 5 (100.0%) 25 (17.9%) 11 (31.4%) * <0.001
  No 0 (0.0%) 115 (82.1%) 24 (68.6%)  
tube revision Yes 0 (0.0%) 7 (5.0%) 3 (8.6%) 0.612
  No 5 (100.0%) 133 (95.0%) 32 (91.4%)  
high residual Yes 2 (40.0%) 11 (7.9%) 0 (0.0%) *0.004
  No 3 (60.0%) 129 (92.1%) 35 (100.0%)  
|Length of hospital stay 3.8 ± 1.49 7.26 ± 0.97 27.61 ± 15.88 *0.017  

Table 3: Association between type of tube and clinical characteristics of the patient.

    Type of GT used     P - Value
Variables Categories Foley Cath Mickey Tube Mic Tube  
Gender Male 68 (60.2%) 37 (66.1%) 6 (54.5%) 0.67
  Female 45 (39.8%) 19 (33.9%) 5 (45.5%)  
Concomitant Fundoplication Yes 27 (23.9%) 12 (21.4%) 5 (45.5%) 0.232
  No 86 (76.1%) 44 (78.6%) 6 (54.5%)  
Indication of the procedure GERD 32 (28.3%) 19 (33.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.351
  Feeding Intolerance 4 (3.5%) 2 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%)  
  Swallowing disorder 23 (20.4%) 13 (23.2%) 4 (36.4%)  
  More than one indications 54 (47.8%) 22 (39.3%) 7 (63.6%)  
Operative Time 89.89 ± 8.77 80.95 ± 12.54 81.14 ± 26.82 0.836  
Feeding Start (On day) 2.11 ± 0.11 2.02 ± 1.58 1.80 ± 0.29 0.649  
Neurological disorder Yes 86 (76.1%) 43 (76.8%) 10 (90.9%) 0.533
  No 27 (23.9%) 13 (23.2%) 1 (9.1%)  
Albumin Level 25.26 ± 1.94 28.53 ± 3.44 16.04 ± 8.05 0.336  
Complications Post-Operative Yes 35 (31.0%) 18 (32.1%) 6 (54.5%) 0.28
No 78 (69.0%) 38 (67.9%) 5 (45.5%)  
Ileus Yes 2 (1.8%) 4 (7.1%) 1 (9.1%) 0.154
No 111 (98.2%) 52 (92.9%) 10 (90.9%)  
Diarrhea Yes 12 (10.6%) 15 (26.8%) 0 (0.0%) * 0.008
No 101 (89.4%) 41 (73.2%) 11 (100.0%)  
Nausea Yes 15 (13.3%) 9 (16.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.358
No 98 (86.7%) 47 (83.9%) 11 (100.0%)  
Pain after feeding Yes 6 (5.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.159
No 107 (94.7%) 56 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%)  
Leakage Yes 29 (25.7%) 8 (14.3%) 4 (36.4%) 0.136
No 84 (74.3%) 48 (85.7%) 7 (63.6%)  
Tube revision Yes 10 (8.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) * 0.043
No 103 (91.2%) 56 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%)  
High residual Yes 10 (8.8%) 3 (5.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.451
No 103 (91.2%) 53 (94.6%) 11 (100.0%)  
Length of hospital stay 6.99 ± 0.96 9.49 ± 1.99 46.09 ± 3.75 * 0.001  
Outcome Death 3 (2.7%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (9.1%) 0.639
Full Recovery 88 (77.9%) 43 (76.8%) 9 (81.8%)  
Recovery with sequelae 22 (19.5%) 12 (21.4%) 1 (9.1%)  

Table 4: Association between outcome of study and clinical characteristics of the patient

Health resource use

The median aggregate hospital days or the total length of stay from admission to discharge was 6.99 ± 0.96 days for Foley catheter placement, 9.49 ± 1.99 days for Mickey tube and 46.09 ± 3.75 days for Mic tube placement (p<0.001). Operative time for open technique was less 84.11 ± 9.45 minutes than for laparoscopic 90.18 ± 10.30 minutes (p=0.665) due to the concomitant fundoplication applied with laparoscopic approach more 29 (33.7%) than with open technique 15 (16.0%) (p=0.006). However, feeding for the patients who underwent laparoscopic technique started from the first postoperative day with delayed feeding on day 2 or 3 for patients on who performed the open technique.

Institutional data

(Tables 1 and 2) displays the demographics and disease characteristics of all the patients at presentation. The two cohorts did not differ significantly in terms of patient demographics, type of procedure and clinical characteristics of the patient or comorbidities.

Compared with open technique of gastrostomy placement, the postoperative complications in terms of postoperative nausea 20 (21.5%), pain after feeding 6 (6.4%) and leakage 25 (26.6%) were more with open technique versus 4 (4.7%) p=0.006, 0 (0.0%) p=0.017 and 16 (18.6%) p 0.202 respectively in laparoscopic technique. Concomitant fundoplicaiton as more commonly performed for patients with neurological disorders in laparoscopic technique 29 (33.7%) vs. open 15 (16.0%) p=0.006. Postoperative diarrheae was observed more in patients who underwent Mic- Key tube placement p=0.008, however length of the hospital stay was more after Mic tube placement p=001. The institutional data included outcome of patients with neurological disorders who underwent gastrostomy tube placement 21 (60.0%) with sequel and 113 (80.3%) without sequel and neurological disorders p=0.015.

Discussion

Placement of a gastrostomy tube for feeding is one of the most commonly performed pediatric surgery procedures. The options for feeding tube placement into the stomach include an open gastrostomy tube placement, a laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), and a laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. The choice of procedures depends on patient clinical characteristics and surgeon preference. However, there is no definitive data that proves the benefits of open technique over the laparoscopic [6].

Various complications, ranging from minor to the more severe, have been reported with all methods of placement. Many pediatric patients who undergo gastrostomy tube placement will require long-term enteral therapy. Given the prolonged time pediatric patients may remain enterally dependent, further quality improvement and education initiatives are needed to improve long-term care and outcomes of these patients[7]. Systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrostomy insertion techniques in children revealed percutaneous is associated with an increased risk of major complications when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Advantages in operative time appear outweighed by the increased safety profile of laparoscopic gastrostomy insertion [1].

Gastrostomy tube placement significantly improves the child's physical health, and concomitantly improves the mental health of the child's caregivers, especially at (or after) one year [8].

Pediatric patients who are the candidates for gastrostomy generally must have normal or near-normal gastric motility, including gastric emptying time as well as small bowel motility [9]. Studies revealed that laparoscopic technique reduces gastro esophageal reflux disease in neurologically impaired patients by improving gastric emptying [10]. Mostly encountered complication were granulation tissue and tube dislodgement after gastrostomy placement in children [11]. However, study conducted in our institution showed high rate of the leakage, pain after feeding and nausea associated with open technique in comparison to the laparoscopic.

Due to the increased negative outcomes including unintentional tube dislodgements, returns to the emergency department, and need for reoperation within 30 days for the patients who underwent open Stamm gastrostomy placement upon retrospective studies it worth to conduct the prospective analysis to confirm that minimally invasive technique is associated with less complicaitons [12].

Laparoscopic and open techniques for Nissan fundoplication with gastrostomy placement have been found safe and appropriate treatment methods with equivalent operating times for the treatment of gastro esophageal reflux in the neonatal intensive care unit population [13]. Study showed of the naso-jejunal tubes placement in 94% of the patients in an average time of 12 minutes [14].

Our research revealed that insertion of gastrostomies by operative techinque takes longer, open or laparoscopic including concomitant fundoplication, approximately 84-90 minutes. No study has been conducted to confirm whether open is associated with an increased risk of major complications when compared to the laparoscopic approach in kids apart from neonatal aged ones.

Postoperative complications like leakage, postoperative pain and nausea prevailed in children more than 1 year old who underwent open technique. The gastrostomy tube replacement using Foley's catheters instead of the commercial gastrostomy ones is a safe and convenient practice without any severe complications [15]. Enteral nutrition in pediatric population increases significantly growth within 6-24 months after insertion of gastrostomy tubes [16].

IRB APPROVAL

King Fahad Medical City Institutional Review Board IRB No. 15-425

Consent

All patients provided informed consent for undergoing the procedures

Conclusion

Although the technical and clinical outcomes for open and laparoscopic tube placement appear comparable, laparoscopic technique is associated with shorter length of stay and fewer complications.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

Viewing options

Post your comment

Share This Article

Flyer image
journal indexing image
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh