PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Xin-dong Xue

Publications and source records attributed to Xin-dong Xue.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

[Etiology of laryngeal stridor in neonates: analysis of 16 cases].

OBJECTIVE: To reduce misdiagnosis and explore etiology of laryngeal stridor in neonates. METHODS: Sixteen neonates with laryngeal stridor were reviewed. All the patients were examined with CT scan for larynx and lungs and some were examined with laryngoscopy. Laboratory examination and chromosome analysis were also done in all or some patients. RESULTS: All the 16 neonates were diagnosed before admission as congenital simple laryngeal stridor in other hospitals. Of the 16 neonates with laryngeal stridor, 5 (31%) had thyroglossal ductal cyst, 1 (6%) neonate with cri du chat (5p(-)) syndrome, 2 (13%) neonates with Pierre-Robin syndrome and the rest 8 (50%) were suspected of congenital simple laryngeal stridor. CONCLUSION: Neonates with laryngeal stridor are easily misdiagnosed; neonatal thyroglossal duct cyst is one of common causes. The diagnosis for a congenital simple laryngeal stridor should be carefully made excluding the possibility of related diseases. The authors recommend that laryngoscopy and CT scan for larynx should be performed in the neonates with laryngeal stridor.

Diagnostic Errors↗

[Effects of nonnutritive sucking on gastric emptying and gastroesophageal reflux in premature infants].

OBJECTIVE: Although nonnutritive sucking (NNS) during tube feeding has some benefits on the physiology and development of premature infants, the effect on gastrointestinal function remains controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of NNS on the gastric emptying and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in premature infants. METHODS: Thirty eight healthy appropriate-for-gestational-age premature infants (birth weight ranged from 1050 g to 1790 g, gestational age ranged from 28 weeks to 35 weeks) accepting intermittent nasogastric feeding (INGF) were randomized into NNS group and N-NNS group according to INGF with and without NNS and fed with the same milk formula. Group NNS (n = 18) received oral stimulation by means of a pacifier immediately before feeding, during feeding and then after feeding for 5 min. Group N-NNS (n = 20) served as control and received INGF alone. The following data were collected and recorded, the fluid intake (including both intravenous and oral), milk intake, caloric intake, time of caloric intake reaching 418.4 kJ/(kg x d) by enteral feeding and relevant condition to feeding. Gastric emptying was measured when oral intake reaching above 8 ml/kg while concurrently measuring 24 hour esophageal pH. Real time ultrasonic images of the gastric antrum were obtained and the antral cross sectional area (ACSA) was measured and the half emptying time (50% DeltaACSA) was calculated. Using 24-hour intraesophageal pH monitoring for evaluation of GER, the five parameters of esophageal pH were recorded: number of reflux episodes during 24 hours, reflux index, number of episodes lasting > 5 min, the duration of longest episode and the total time of pH < 4.0. RESULTS: Within two weeks after feeding, there was no significant difference in the fluid intake, caloric intake between the two groups (P > 0.05). Gastric emptying was measured on day 13.26, milk intake had no difference between the two groups and there was no difference in prefeed ACSA. The half gastric emptying time in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS group [(58.33 +/- 22.94) min vs. (73.75 +/- 17.76) min, P < 0.05]. Thirty-two of the 38 infants developed GER, the morbidity was 84.2%; the number of reflux episodes during 24 hours was significantly fewer in NNS group than that in N-NNS group [9 (2 - 31) vs. 14 (5 - 31), P < 0.05]; the total time pH < 4.0 and reflux index was lower in NNS than that in N-NNS, but the difference was not statistically significant. The time of reaching 418.4 kJ/(kg x d) by enteral feeding in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS group [(12.36 +/- 4.29) d vs. (15.50 +/- 4.58) d, P < 0.05]. The incidence of feeding intolerance such as vomiting and abdominal distension was lower in NNS group than that in N-NNS group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). However, the morbidity of gastric residue in NNS was significantly lower than that in N-NNS (16.7% vs 50.0%, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: NNS used during intermittent nasogastric tube feeding is an easy and safe intervention. NNS can improve gastric emptying and decrease the number of reflux episodes, has a positive improving effect on the development of gastrointestinal motility, is beneficial to premature infants for establishing postnatal enteral nutrition.

Enteral Nutrition↗

[Effects of intermittent nasogastric feeding with nonnutritive sucking on nutrient and gastrointestinal tract transit time in premature infants].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of nonnutritive sucking (NNS) on the nutrient intake, physical growth, feeding-related complications and whole gastrointestinal transit time (WGTT) in premature infants. METHODS: Thirty eight healthy appropriate for gestational age premature infants (birth weights ranged from 1 050 g to 1 790 g) accepting intermittent nasogastric feeding (INGF) were randomized into NNS group and N-NNS group according to INGF with and without NNS and fed with the same milk formula. The following data were collected and recorded, the physical growth parameters (e.g, body weight, length and head circumference) and the birth-weight regaining time, the fluid intake (including both intravenous and oral), caloric intake, time of reaching 418.4 kJ/(kg.d) by enteral feeding, time of putting nasogastric tube, stool frequency and characters, and relevant complications. WGTT were monitored. RESULTS: The birth-weight regaining time in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS group [(8.8 +/- 3.7) d vs (11.1 +/- 3.0) d, P < 0.05]. Within two weeks after feeding, there was no significant difference in the increase of body weight, length and head circumference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The time of reaching 418.4 kJ/(kg.d) by enteral feeding in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS group [(12.3 +/- 5.1) d vs (15.7 +/- 5.2) d, P < 0.05]; the times of putting nasogastric tube were respectively (13 +/- 10) d and (17 +/- 12) d, but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). The morbidity of such complications as vomiting and abdominal distension was lower in NNS group than that in N-NNS group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). However, the morbidity of gastric residue in NNS was significantly lower than that in N-NNS (P < 0.05). WGTT of the second week in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS [(33 +/- 13) h vs (45 +/- 20) h, P < 0.05]. Stool frequencies of the second week in NNS group were significantly more than those in N-NNS group [(2.26 +/- 0.17) times/d vs (1.79 +/- 0.58) times/d, P < 0.05]. However, there were no significantly differences in WGTT and stool frequencies of the first week between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: NNS was recommended as a beneficial intervention for premature infants during intermittent nasogastric tube feeding.

Enteral Nutrition↗