Sonography as an alternative to radiography for nasogastric feeding tube location

Vigneau, Cécile; Baudel, Jean-Luc; Guidet, Bertrand; Offenstadt, G.; Maury, Éric

doi:10.1007/s00134-005-2791-1

Cited by 80 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Double linear echogenic view that extended to the post pyloric area and displayed continuity in the antropyloric area was evaluated as catheter. In a study that used USG for detecting NGT localisation, USG sensitivity was 97% (24). In our study, USG was found successful at a rate of 97% in detecting catheter localisation when all cases were considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Role of Ultrasonography in Detecting the Localisation of the Nasoenteric Tube

Dağlı¹,

Bayır²,

Dadali³

et al. 2017

Turk J Anaesth Reanim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In this study, we aimed to determine the success rate of nasoenteric tube (NET) insertion into the postpyloric area using ultrasonography (USG) and compare with the commonly used method direct abdominal graphy. Methods:A single anaesthesiologist placed all the NETs. The NET was visualised by two radiologists simultaneously using USG. The localisation of the tube was confirmed using an abdominal graph in all patients. Results:The blind bedside method was used for NET insertion into 34 patients. Eleven of the tubes were detected passing through the postpyloric area using USG. In one case, the NET could not be visualised in the postpyloric area using USG; however, it was detected in the postpyloric area through control abdominal radiography. In 22 patients, NETs were detected in the stomach using control abdominal radiography. The rate of imaging post pyloric using USG was 91.6%. When all cases were considered, catheter localisation was detected accurately using USG by 97% (33 in 34 patients).Conclusion: USG is a reliable and practical alternative to radiography, which can be used to detect localisation of the nasogastric tube and NET.Keywords: Nasoenteric tube, ultrasonography, radiography, enteral feeding, aspiration Amaç: Bu çalışmada; nasoenterik tüpün (NET) postpilorik alana geçtiğinin tespitinde ultrasonografinin (USG) başarı oranını saptamak ve bu yöntemi tüpün lokalizasyonu için yaygın kullanılan direkt batın grafisi ile karşılaştırmayı amaçladık.Yöntemler: NET bir anestezist tarafından yerleştirildi. İki radyolog tarafından USG ile görüntülendi. Tüm hastalarda tüpün lokalizasyonu abdominal grafi ile doğrulandı. Bulgular:Otuz dört hastaya NET yerleştirmek için yatakbaşı kör yöntem kullanıldı. NET'lerin 11'inin USG ile postpilorik alana geçtiği USG ile tespit edildi. Bir hastada NET lokalizasyonunun ultrasonografi ile postpilorik görülemedi, fakat kontrol batın grafisinde postpilorik alanda olduğu tespit edildi. Yirmiiki hastada, NET'lerin kontrol batın grafilerinde midede oldukları saptandı. USG ile postpilorik görüntüleyebilme oranımız %91,6 olarak saptandı. Tüm vakalar düşünüldüğünde, USG ile katater lokalizasyonunu doğrulama oranı %97 olarak saptandı (34 hastada 33).Sonuç: USG; nasogastrik tüp ve NET lokalizasyonu için kullanı-lan radyografiye, güvenilir, pratik bir alternatif yöntemdir.Anahtar Kelimeler: Nasoenterik tüp, ultrasonografi, radiografi, enteral besleme, aspirasyon Abstract / Öz

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Role of Ultrasonography in Detecting the Localisation of the Nasoenteric Tube

Dağlı¹,

Bayır²,

Dadali³

et al. 2017

Turk J Anaesth Reanim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the study, the accurate placement was confirmed with USG in 43 (72%) of 60 feeding tubes [12]. In another study, Vigneau et al (2005) reported that USG had quicker results in 35 hospitalized patients in ICU, compared to radiography, and the placement of GT was confirmed in 97% of all cases with higher sensitivity [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…However, radiography is associated with undesirable factors, such as exposure to ionizing radiation, cost and time-consuming [9,10]. In recent years, increasing number of studies have examined the efficacy of USG as an alternative to radiography for confirming the position of GT [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. However, there are controversial and conflicting results on diagnostic accuracy, and there is no consensus on the role of USG in routine clinical practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are controversial and conflicting results on diagnostic accuracy, and there is no consensus on the role of USG in routine clinical practice. In addition, direct visualization of stomach as a definitive verification method can be difficult due to interposition, gastric content and patients' characteristics (obese or excessively mobile) [11][12][13][14]. Therefore, additional methods, such as combining different scanning points and visualization of dynamic fogging or Doppler signal due to air insufflation can be used to improve the accuracy of diagnosis [15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evaluation of efficacy of three different ultrasonography methods for verification of gastric tube placement in intensive care unit patients

Gök¹

2017

Med-Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastric tube (GT) placement is a routine procedure in critically ill patients. Improper placement of GT could lead to severe complications. Radiography remains as the gold standard test to confirm tube position. The study aim is to estimate diagnostic accuracy of three different ultrasonography (USG) methods to verify GT placement in intensive care units (ICU). Twenty-five mechanically ventilated patients were included in this prospective and observational study. All real time US examinations were performed by an intensivist in three steps: sonography ofneck for visualizing esophagus and upper abdominal quadrant for visualizing stomach, and visualisation of dynamic fogging during water and air insufflations in gastric area. Finally, gastric placement of GT was confirmed with abdominal radiography. USG visualized GT in esophagus in 24 (96 %) patients. GT was directly visualized in stomach in 16 (64%) patients and dynamic fogging occurred in 20 (80 %) in the first attempt and in 23 (92 %) patients after tube removal. Because gastric tube was not seen in stomach in nine cases, dynamic fogging allowed to confirm intragastric position in seven cases. In two cases, no dynamic fogging was observed, and radiography confirmedtube malposition in esophagus. Entire sonographic procedure took 7.24±2.58 minutes. Visualization of the esophagus and dynamic fogging improves the diagnostic accuracy of USG in verifying GT position. Confirming correct GT placement by USG has the potential to reduce X-ray usage and save time. However, X-ray remains the gold standard in cases in which USG cannot verify placement of the GT.

show abstract

“…This study showed that ultrasonography had 97% sensitivity and could be performed in a shorter time than conventional radiological examinations. The authors also suggested that a basic chest x-ray should be taken in patients in whom tube placement could not be verified using ultrasonography [15]. A study by Chenaitia H. et al also found that NGT placement could be easily determined by ultrasonography in prehospital managment [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%