↓ Skip to main content

Safety of orogastric tubes in foregut and bariatric surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Safety of orogastric tubes in foregut and bariatric surgery
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6269-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kulvir Nandra, Richard Ing

Abstract

Orogastric tubes have traditionally aided foregut procedures with sizing and organ protection. The rise of bariatric surgery has led to the creation of novel medical devices aimed at facilitating the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. While approved by the FDA, the long-term safety profile of these devices in the general population is often unknown. This review looks at complications associated with novel Orogastric Tubes compared to the traditional bougie. We performed a review of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for complications associated with the traditional bougie, Boehringer Labs ViSiGi 3D® and the Medtronic GastriSail™ since 2011. In addition, we looked for reported cases in the literature of complications with these devices. Overall complication rates reported in the MAUDE database varied in number and severity. The bougie had seven reported complications, one of which was an organ perforation. The ViSiGi 3D® had zero reported complications. The GastriSail™ had 36 total reported complications with 17 perforations. A literature review shows that rates of bougie complications are extremely rare with no case reports or reviews of complications from the novel orogastric tubes. The complication rates between the traditional bougie and novel devices vary in number and severity, with the GastriSail™ having the highest reported complication rate. Despite rigorous testing for FDA approval, ongoing research into performance of new medical devices in the general population remains important.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 43%
Other 2 14%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Unspecified 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,544,609
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,837
of 6,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,390
of 328,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#88
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,125 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.