| Literature DB >> 35922792 |
Dolrudee Aroonsaeng1,2, Paul D Losty1,3, Pornsri Thanachatchairattana4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Findings from manometry studies and contrast imaging reveal functioning gastric physiology in newborns with duodenal atresia and stenosis. Stomach reservoir function should therefore be valuable in aiding the postoperative phase of gastric feeding. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the feasibility of initiating oral or large volume(s) gavage feeds vs small volume bolus feeds following operation for congenital duodenal anomalies.Entities:
Keywords: Duodenal atresia; Duodenal stenosis; Gastric reservoir; Gavage feeding; Oral feeds
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35922792 PMCID: PMC9347087 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-022-03524-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.567
Patients Information
| Variables | Total | Fast feed | Slow feed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, n (%) | ||||
| Male | 28 (54.9) | 15 (57.7) | 13 (52.0) | 0.683 |
| Female | 23 (45.1) | 11 (42.3) | 12 (48.0) | |
| Birth weight (gm), mean | 2423 ± 524 | 2554 ± 422 | 2287 ± 590 | 0.068 |
| GA (weeks), mean | 36.5 ± 1.8 | 36.8 ± 1.6 | 36.3 ± 2.1 | 0.442 |
| Term, n (%) | 6 (11.8) | 5 (19.2) | 1 (4.0) | 0.191 |
| Ward of feed, n (%) | ||||
| Ped | 35 (68.6) | 16 (61.5) | 19 (76.0) | 0.266 |
| Ped Sx | 16 (31.4) | 10 (38.5) | 6 (24.0) | |
| Age at surgery (days), median (IQR) | 4 (2, 8) | 5 (3, 8) | 3 (2, 5) | 0.117 |
| Procedure, n (%) | ||||
| Duodenoduodenostomy | 38 (74.5) | 18 (69.2) | 20 (80.0) | 0.493 |
| Duodenojejunostomy | 8 (15.7) | 5 (19.2) | 3 (12.0) | |
| Web excision | 4 (7.8) | 3 (11.6) | 1 (4.0) | |
| Duodenoduodenostomy+ Duodenojejunostomy | 1 (2.0) | 0 | 1 (4.0) | |
| Atresia type, n (%) | ||||
| Stenosis | 14 (27.5) | 7 (26.9) | 7 (28.0) | 0.512 |
| Web | 15 (29.4) | 10 (38.5) | 5 (20.0) | |
| Cord | 5 (9.8) | 2 (7.7) | 3 (12.0) | |
| Gap | 17 (33.3) | 7 (26.9) | 10 (40.0) | |
| Annular pancreas, n (%) | ||||
| No | 35 (68.6) | 20 (76.9) | 15 (60.0) | 0.193 |
| Yes | 16 (31.4) | 6 (23.1) | 10 (40.0) | |
| Down’s syndrome, n (%) | ||||
| No | 30 (58.8) | 14 (53.8) | 16 (64.0) | 0.461 |
| Yes | 21 (41.2) | 12 (46.2) | 9 (36.0) | |
| Congenital heart disease, n (%) | ||||
| No | 31 (60.8) | 17 (65.4) | 14 (56.0) | 0.493 |
| Yes | 20 (39.2) | 9 (34.6) | 11 (44.0) | |
| Others n (%) | ||||
| No | 31 (60.8) | 17 (65.4) | 14 (56.0) | 0.493 |
| Yes | 20 (39.2) | 9 (34.6) | 11 (44.0) | |
| Medical disorders n (%) | ||||
| No | 28 (54.9) | 16 (61.5) | 12 (48.0) | 0.331 |
| Yes | 23 (45.1) | 10 (38.5) | 13 (52.0) | |
| Complicated surgery, n (%) | ||||
| No | 37 (72.5) | 17 (65.4) | 20 (80.0) | 0.242 |
| Yes | 14 (27.5) | 9 (34.6) | 5 (20.0) | |
Fisher’s exact test > Term, Atresia type, Procedure
Chi-square test > Gender, Ward of feed, Annular pancreas, Down syndrome, Heart disease, Other, Medical problem, Complicated surgery
Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (non-normal) > Age at surgery
Student t-test (normal) > Birth weight (gm), GA (weeks)
Fig. 1Shows average volume of gastric content (mls) in each postoperative date (days) in patient study groups of fast and slow attempted feeds
Fig. 2Shows the number of patients in each postoperative date (days) who have commenced type of feeding schedule categorized into Fast and Slow feeds
Feeding Data
| Variable | Total | Fast feed | Slow feed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OG content at 1 day before starting OG feed (ml), mean ± SD | 24.4 ± 16.3 | 22.4 ± 15.9 | 26.4 ± 16.7 | 0.391 |
| OG content at 1 day before starting OG feed /BW (ml/kg), mean ± SD | 10.4 ± 7.1 | 8.8 ± 6.3 | 11.9 ± 7.6 | 0.125 |
| First oral feed at POD, mean ± SD | 11.9 ± 7.2 | 7.7 ± 3.2 | 16.1 ± 7.7 | 0.000 |
| Full feed at POD, mean ± SD | 15.6 ± 8.3 | 12.5 ± 5.3 | 18.8 ± 9.7 | 0.007 |
| Number of dates from start feed to full feed, mean ± SD | 8.7 ± 7.2 | 5.9 ± 4.8 | 11.5 ± 8.3 | 0.006 |
| Start feed at POD, mean ± SD | 6.9 ± 2.6 | 6.6 ± 1.7 | 7.3 ± 3.2 | 0.314 |
| day2, n (%) | 1 (2.0) | 0 | 1 (4.0) | |
| day3, n (%) | 2 (3.9) | 1 (3.9) | 1 (4.0) | |
| day4, n (%) | 5 (9.8) | 1 (3.9) | 4 (16.0) | |
| day5, n (%) | 8 (15.7) | 6 (23.0) | 2 (8.0) | |
| day6, n (%) | 7 (13.7) | 6 (23.0) | 1 (4.0) | |
| day7, n (%) | 7 (13.7) | 2 (7.7) | 5 (20.0) | |
| day8, n (%) | 11 (21.6) | 7 (26.9) | 4 (16.0) | |
| day9, n (%) | 3 (5.9) | 2 (7.7) | 1 (4.0) | |
| day10, n (%) | 4 (7.8) | 1 (3.9) | 3 (12.0) | |
| day12, n (%) | 2 (3.9) | 0 | 2 (8.0) | |
| day16, n (%) | 1 (2.0) | 0 | 1 (4.0) | |
| Max advanced feed volume per day (ml), mean ± SD | 7.2 ± 4.5 | 9.5 ± 4.7 | 4.9 ± 2.9 | 0.000 |
| Discharge at POD (day), median (IQR) | 18 (13,28) | 14 (12, 25) | 20 (16, 32) | 0.025 |
Student t-test (normal) > OG content at 1 day before starting OG feed, OG content/BW, start oral feed at POD, full feed at POD for analysis, number of dates from start feed to full feed, Start feed at POD, Max advanced feed volume per day
Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (non-normal) > Discharge at POD
Fig. 3Shows the correlation of GA vs OG content 1 day before feed by feeding type: the overall Correlation (r = 0.188), p-value = 0.217
Fig. 4Shows the correlation of GA vs OG content 1 day before feed per BW by feeding type: the overall Correlation (r = 0.031), p-value = 0.842
Fig. 5Shows the insignificant correlation (r = 0.088, p = 0.539) between the volume of gastric content one day before starting feed and birth weight
Categorized details of feed schedules according to pediatrician and surgeons
| variable | Ped | Ped Sx | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fast fed group ( | 16 | 10 | |
| Gastric content monitoring, n (%) | |||
| No | 13 (81.3) | 8 (80.0) | 0.939 |
| Yes | 3 (18.8) | 2 (20.0) | |
| Max advanced feed-volume per day (ml), mean | 8.9 | 10.2 | 0.343 |
| Slow fed group ( | 19 | 6 | |
| Gastric content monitoring, n (%) | |||
| No | 11 (57.9) | 5 (83.3) | 0.364 |
| Yes | 8 (42.1) | 1 (16.7) | |
| Max advanced feed-volume per day (ml), mean | 4.1 | 6.2 | 0.175 |
Fisher’s exact test > Gastric content monitoring
Student-t test > Max advanced feed-volume per day