↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of different feeding regimes after pancreatoduodenectomy - a retrospective cohort analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of different feeding regimes after pancreatoduodenectomy - a retrospective cohort analysis
Published in
Nutrition Journal, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0265-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Théophile Guilbaud, David Jérémie Birnbaum, Sandrine Loubière, Julien Bonnet, Sophie Chopinet, Emilie Grégoire, Stéphane Berdah, Jean Hardwigsen, Vincent Moutardier

Abstract

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is the most frequent pancreatic specific complication (PSC) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Several gastric decompression systems exist to manage DGE. Patients with a pancreatic tumor require prolonged nutrition; however, controversies exist concerning nutrition protocol after PD. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of nasogastric (NG), gastrostomy (GT), and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) tubes with different feeding systems on postoperative courses. Between January 2013 and March 2016, 86 patients underwent PD with pancreaticogastrostomy. Patients were divided into three groups: GJ group with enteral nutrition (EN, n = 12, 14%), NG (n = 31, 36%) and GT groups (n = 43, 50%), both with total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Patients in the GJ (n = 9, 75%) and GT (n = 18, 42%) groups had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3 more often than those in the NG group (n = 5, 16%, p ≤ 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified the GT tube with TPN as an independent risk factor of severe morbidity (p = 0.02) and DGE (p < 0.01). An ASA score of 3, jaundice, common pancreatic duct size ≤3 mm and soft pancreatic gland texture (p < 0.05) were found as independent risk factors of PSCs. Use of a GJ tube with EN, GT tube with TPN, jaundice, and PSCs were identified as independent risk factors for greater postoperative length of hospital stay (p < 0.01). Mean global hospitalization cost did not differ between groups. GT tube insertion with TPN was associated with increased severe postoperative morbidity and DGE and should not be recommended. EN through a GJ tube after PD is feasible but does not have clear advantages on postoperative courses compared to an NG tube.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 22 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 23 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,254,867
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#918
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,021
of 313,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 313,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.