1999
DOI: 10.1177/088453369901400506
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long‐Term Home Jejunostomy Feeding of Young Children

Abstract: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a motility disorder that occurs more frequently in children with neurological disease and in children with congenital esophageal anomalies or diaphragmatic hernia. Feeding difficulties and asthma may be caused by GER. Pharmacological and surgical treatment are successful in most cases. The authors describe 6 children with severe GER and asthma, who were treated with long‐term jejunostomy feeding. Median length of treatment was 6 months (range, 5–12), for a total of 44 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We have not used a structured decision tree in the past. We have not asked the parents about the clinical effect or complications, but this has been reported in a qualitative study performed by our unit 26 . Despite the encouraging results in the present study, our impression is that some of the children with NI would have been better off with other types of surgical procedures as a result of more structured operative criteria.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…We have not used a structured decision tree in the past. We have not asked the parents about the clinical effect or complications, but this has been reported in a qualitative study performed by our unit 26 . Despite the encouraging results in the present study, our impression is that some of the children with NI would have been better off with other types of surgical procedures as a result of more structured operative criteria.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Twenty-four studies were retrieved for detailed evaluation. Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content (http://links.lww.com/MPG/C641) lists subsequently excluded studies after detailed evaluation (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) and reasons for exclusion. Ultimately, 10 eligible studies (11,12,16,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37) were included for the final systematic review.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%