Feeding @entity16 XXXX : is an antireflux procedure necessary?

@entity1 @entity16 @entity204 @entity354
Some authors recommend a routine "protective" antireflux procedure (ARP) in @entity16 @entity1 undergoing feeding gastrostomy (FG). Over 4 years, we performed FG in 107 @entity16 @entity1 aged 1 month to 16 years. Ninety-eight had preoperative radiological assessment for @entity354 ( @entity354 ), which was documented in 44, of whom 33 had FG plus ARP and 11 had FG alone. Seven of the 11 subsequently developed symptomatic @entity354 and 5 of them had a secondary ARP. Of the 54 @entity1 with no demonstrable @entity354 preoperatively, 3 @entity1 underwent FG plus ARP. The remaining 51 had FG alone. There was one @entity204 . Of the 50 surviving @entity1 , 22 developed symptomatic @entity354 and 17 of these had a subsequent ARP. Mean follow-up of 20.0 months showed that the risk of developing @entity354 after FG alone was not influenced by age, sex, indication for FG, underlying diagnosis, or method of gastrostomy. There was no significant difference in mortality and early morbidity between @entity1 undergoing FG alone and those having FG with simultaneous or subsequent ARP. Only 44% of our @entity1 in whom @entity354 was not demonstrated initially developed symptomatic @entity354 followed FG alone. This incidence does not justify a routine "protective" ARP.
