Gastrostomy and Gastrojejunostomy Tube Placements: Outcomes in Children with Gastroschisis, Omphalocele, and Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the technical success, safety, and outcomes of radiologically guided retrograde percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy tube placements in terms of weight gain and growth in children with gastroschisis, omphalocele, and/or congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research ethics board approval, with waived informed patient consent, was obtained for review of the data of 37 children (17 male, 20 female; age range, 1-20 months; mean age, 4.3 months) in whom gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy tubes were inserted between 1995 and 2004. Twenty-two patients had CDH, eight had gastroschisis, five had omphalocele, and two had both CDH and omphalocele. The technical success and complications of the procedures were recorded. Tube maintenance problems were analyzed separately from postprocedural complications. Initial and final patient growth percentiles were compared by using a one-sided paired Student t test. RESULTS: Thirty-six of the 38 procedures performed in the 37 patients were successful. There were three intraprocedural complications (two cases of access difficulty, one case of bleeding) and three major complications (one skin and prosthetic material infection, one track loss during tube replacement, one delayed gastrostomy track closure necessitating surgery). Sixteen patients had at least one minor complication (cellulitis, feeding intolerance, skin-site bleeding, intussusception). Twenty-two patients had at least one tube maintenance problem. All patients gained weight (mean weight gain, 4.7 kg) after the procedure, with a significant increase in growth percentile (average increase, 6.5%; P = .029). CONCLUSION: Radiologically guided percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy tube placements in children with gastroschisis, omphalocele, and/or CDH are associated with high success rates and low major complication rates. Although tube maintenance problems and minor complications are common, use of gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy tubes effectively improves nutritional support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".