The distance to the stomach for feeding tube placement in children predicted from regression on height
Thomas Jefferson University, Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United StatesResearch in Nursing & Health (Impact Factor: 1.27). 12/1990; 13(6):411-20. DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770130609
Nurses use several external measures referenced to the head and chest to gauge the insertion distance for orogastric and nasogastric (NG) tubes. Few of the measures have been tested. However, in previous studies height was the external measure most correlated with esophageal length both in children and adults. In this study, the ability of previously published regression equations on height to predict esophageal length for NG-tube insertion in 107 children was evaluated. The regression equations were examined for stability, predictive performance, and the likely positions of the tube. The data were heights and esophageal lengths obtained from esophageal manometry records and hospital charts. The predicted values for nasal insertions were biased and averaged 2.4 cm too long (R2prediction = .56, n = 30). Prediction errors greater than 5 cm in absolute value occurred in 25% of the nasally-referenced sample. The predicted values represented overestimates in 18 nasally referenced cases that were 11.5% longer on the average than the measured esophageal lengths. In contrast, the predicted values for the oral insertions were unbiased (R2prediction = .92, n = 77), and gave accurate predictions in the majority of cases. Eighty percent of the oral predictions were within +/- 1.5 cm of the measured esophageal length and represented percentage errors between 0 and 7% (M = 3%, n = 50).
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to measure the length of the esophagus and assess its relationship to sex, weight, age, height, and various esophageal disorders. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 617 esophageal manometric studies, which included 51 normal control subjects (27 males and 24 females) and 566 patients (297 males and 269 females) with esophageal disorders (50 with achalasia, 6 with diffuse esophageal spasm, 64 with strictures, 38 with nutcracker esophagus, 398 with gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD] with positive 24-hour pH monitoring, and 66 with possible GERD but negative 24-hour pH monitoring). Manometry was performed in all of them by the station pull-through technique. The length of the esophagus was defined as the distance between the proximal end of the upper esophageal sphincter and the distal end of the lower esophageal sphincter. In the control group the mean (± standard deviation) length of the esophagus was 28.3±2.41 cm. In patients with esophageal disorders the mean length of the esophagus was 28.0 ±2.87 cm. Length of the esophagus is related to height but not to weight, sex, age, diffuse esophageal spasm, or nutcracker esophagus. Achalasia is associated with a longer esophagus, and GERD is associated with a shorter esophagus. Stricture is associated with a shorter esophagus, but this is in part due to the association between stricture and GERD. Patients with possible GERD but negative 24-hour pH monitoring have an esophageal length similar to that of GERD patients with positive 24-hour pH monitoring. Patients with GERD and stricture formation showed esophageal shortening in shorter patients. Achalasia, GERD, and GERD with stricture formation influence esophageal length. GERD-related strictures shorten the esophagus more significantly in short patients.Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 09/1999; 3(5):483-488. DOI:10.1016/S1091-255X(99)80101-2 · 2.80 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This report presents detailed information on age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. These reference values provide needed input to prospective dosimetry calculations for radiation protection purposes for both workers and members of the general public.The purpose of this report is to consolidate and unify in one publication, important new information on reference anatomical and physiological values that has become available since Publication 23 was published by the ICRP in 1975. There are two aspects of this work. The first is to revise and extend the information in Publication 23 as appropriate. The second is to provide additional information on individual variation among grossly normal individuals resulting from differences in age, gender, race, or other factors.This publication collects, unifies, and expands the updated ICRP reference values for the purpose of providing a comprehensive and consistent set of age- and gender-specific reference values for anatomical and physiological features of the human body pertinent to radiation dosimetry. The reference values given in this report are based on: (a) anatomical and physiological information not published before by the ICRP; (b) recent ICRP publications containing reference value information; and (c) information in Publication 23 that is still considered valid and appropriate for radiation protection purposes.Moving from the past emphasis on ‘Reference Man’, the new report presents a series of reference values for both male and female subjects of six different ages: newborn, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and adult. In selecting reference values, the Commission has used data on Western Europeans and North Americans because these populations have been well studied with respect to antomy, body composition, and physiology. When appropriate, comparisons are made between the chosen reference values and data from several Asian populations.The first section of the report provides summary tables of all the anatomical and physiological parameters given as reference values in this publication. These results give a comprehensive view of reference values for an individual as influenced by age and gender.The second section describes characteristics of dosimetric importance for the embryo and fetus. Information is provided on the development of the total body and the timing of appearance and development of the various organ systems. Reference values are provided on the mass of the total body and selected organs and tissues, as well as a number of physiological parameters.The third section deals with reference values of important anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals from birth to adulthood. This section begins with details on the growth and composition of the total body in males and females. It then describes and quantifies anatomical and physiological characteristics of various organ systems and changes in these characteristics during growth, maturity, and pregnancy. Reference values are specified for characteristics of dosimetric importance.The final section gives a brief summary of the elemental composition of individuals. Focusing on the elements of dosimetric importance, information is presented on the body content of 13 elements: calcium, carbon, chloride, hydrogen, iodine, iron, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, sodium, sulphur, and phosphorus.Annals of the ICRP 09/2002; 32(3-4):1-277. DOI:10.1016/S0146-6453(03)00002-2
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Approximately 1 million enteral tubes are placed through the nose or mouth in adults and children in the United States annually. Previous studies found gastric tube placement errors to be common. A primary issue in ensuring safe and effective gastric feeding by tube is achieving optimal tube position on insertion. The purpose of this study is to use 24 variables to develop a clinical prediction rule for gastric tube insertion distance in adults, using the internal-nares-to-distal-lower esophageal-sphincter distance. A three-variable model using gender, weight, and nose-umbilicus-flat was selected. This new model, validated using nonparametric bootstrap cross-validation, correctly predicted gastric tube insertion distance 85.3% of the time. This new model is compared to two other methods, one evidence based and one commonly used in practice, and was found to be superior. Two nomograms, one for each gender, are drawn to make this new model easier to use.Clinical Nursing Research 03/2005; 14(1):11-27; discussion 28-31. DOI:10.1177/1054773804270919 · 1.28 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.