Presented at the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium (IVECCS) San Antonio, TX, September 2006.
Comparison of Different Tube Materials and Use of Chinese Finger Trap or Four Friction Suture Technique for Securing Gastrostomy, Jejunostomy, and Thoracostomy Tubes in Dogs
Article first published online: 3 APR 2008
© Copyright 2008 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons
Volume 37, Issue 3, pages 212–221, April 2008
How to Cite
SONG, E. K., MANN, F.A. and WAGNER-MANN, C. C. (2008), Comparison of Different Tube Materials and Use of Chinese Finger Trap or Four Friction Suture Technique for Securing Gastrostomy, Jejunostomy, and Thoracostomy Tubes in Dogs. Veterinary Surgery, 37: 212–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00368.x
Dr. Wagner-Mann's current address is Helias High School, Jefferson City, MO.
- Issue published online: 3 APR 2008
- Article first published online: 3 APR 2008
- Submitted: January 2007 Accepted: November 2007
Objective— To compare Chinese finger trap (CFT) and 4 friction suture (FFS) techniques to secure gastrostomy (GT), jejunostomy (JT), and thoracostomy (TT) tubes of different materials.
Study Design— Prospective experimental study.
Animals— Canine cadavers (n=20).
Methods— Randomly, GT (n=20), JT (20), and TT (20) were inserted using 2 different suture techniques (10 for each tube type) and either silicone or another material (10 for each type). Axial distraction was applied to each tube until failure. Force and displacement to failure and failure mode were recorded and compared between techniques and materials for GT, JT, and TT.
Results— CFT failed most commonly by suture breakage whereas FFS failed mainly by tube slippage (P=.003). For GT, failure occurred more commonly by tube slippage (n=15; P<.001) whereas tube breakage was more common for JT (n=10; P<.001) and suture breakage for TT (n=14; P=.022). Silicone had higher force to failure than latex with GT, lower force to failure than red rubber with JT, and lower displacement to failure than polyvinylchloride with TT.
Conclusions— Different failure modes occurred for CFT (suture breakage) and FFS (tube slippage) and among different tube types (tube slippage with GT, tube breakage with JT, and suture breakage with TT). Based on study results, CFT is preferred to FFS for anchoring silicone GT and TT. Silicone GT, red rubber JT, and polyvinylchloride TT were more secure than latex GT, silicone JT, and silicone TT, respectively.
Clinical Relevance— CFT should be preferred over FFS based on force and displacement to failure, but tube type and tissue reaction could influence anchoring strength.