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

Authors

  • EDDIE KUGJU SONG DVM,

    1. Departments of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, and Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO
    Search for more papers by this author
  • F.A. (TONY) MANN DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVS & ACVECC,

    1. Departments of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, and Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO
    Search for more papers by this author
  • COLETTE C. WAGNER-MANN MA, DVM, PhD

    1. Departments of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, and Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Presented at the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium (IVECCS) San Antonio, TX, September 2006.

  • Dr. Wagner-Mann's current address is Helias High School, Jefferson City, MO.

Address reprint requests to Eddie Kugju Song, DVM, South Coast Veterinary Hospital, 30001 Town Center Dr. #5, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. E-mail: drsongcornell@yahoo.com.

Abstract

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.

Ancillary