Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026

A Minimally Invasive Method for Intratracheal Instillation of Drugs in Neonatal Rodents to Treat Lung Disease
Published on: August 4, 2021
Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants
Julie Watson1, William McGuire
1Maternal and Infant Health and Care, Yorkshire and the Humber Health Innovation and Education Cluster, Department of HealthSciences, University of York, York, UK. judy.hawes@sickkids.ca
Insights
Limited data exist on nasal versus oral enteral feeding tubes for preterm infants. More research is needed to determine optimal tube placement for feeding tolerance and infant development.
Area of Science:
- Neonatal care
- Pediatric gastroenterology
- Clinical trial methodology
Background:
- Enteral feeding tubes are crucial for preterm and low birth weight infants.
- Tube placement can be nasal or oral, each with potential complications.
- Nasal tubes may affect respiration, while oral tubes risk displacement and vagal stimulation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare nasal versus oral enteral feeding tube placement in preterm infants.
- To evaluate effects on feed tolerance, growth, and development.
- To assess the incidence of adverse events associated with tube placement.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
- Searches included Cochrane Neonatal Group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL.
- Data extraction and quality assessment by two independent reviewers.
Main Results:
- Three studies (2 parallel RCTs, 1 cross-over RCT) met eligibility criteria.
- Limited data available; one trial showed no significant effect on feeding establishment or weight regain.
- Another trial found no significant difference in apnea, desaturation, or bradycardia.
Conclusions:
- Insufficient evidence exists to guide clinical practice regarding tube placement.
- A large-scale RCT is necessary to determine the impact of naso- versus oro-enteric feeding tubes.
- Further research is needed to optimize feeding, growth, and minimize adverse events in vulnerable infants.
Background:
Enteral feeding tubes for preterm or low birth weight infants may be placed via either the nose or mouth. Nasal placement may compromise respiration. However, orally placed tubes may be more prone to displacement, local irritation, and vagal stimulation.
Objectives:
To determine the effect of nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes on feed tolerance, growth and development, and the incidence of adverse events in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Search Methods:
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2012), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.
Selection Criteria:
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Data Collection And Analysis:
We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and weighted mean difference (WMD).
Main Results:
Three studies fulfilled the review eligibility criteria. Two were parallel group trials (van Someren 1984; Dsilna 2005) and one was a cross-over trial (Bohnhorst 2010). The two parallel group randomised controlled trials enrolled 88 preterm infants. Only one trial reported data on the pre-specified primary outcomes for this review. This trial found no evidence of effect on the time taken to establish enteral feeding or the time taken to regain birth weight. However, the trial was underpowered to exclude modest effect sizes. We identified one randomised cross-over trial in which 35 very preterm infants participated. This study did not find any statistically significant effects on the incidence of apnoea, desaturation, and bradycardia during the study period.
Authors' Conclusions:
There are insufficient data available to inform practice. A large randomised controlled trial would be required to determine if the use of naso- versus oro-enteric feeding tubes affects feeding, growth and development, and the incidence of adverse events in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Related Concept Videos
Enteral Nutrition I: Orogastric and Nasogastric Feeding
Orogastric (OG) and nasogastric (NG) feeding are two standard methods used for enteral nutrition. Enteral nutrition is often preferred over...
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube through...
Endotracheal Intubation I: Procedure
The ET tube comprises various components, including a standard adaptor to attach a bag-valve-mask (BVM) or ventilator, a cuff, a pilot balloon, and radiopaque markings along its length to measure the insertion distance. The tube sizes...
Additional Routes of Drug Administration
Administering drugs via inhalation allows for the direct delivery of gaseous, volatile substances or droplets to different parts of the respiratory tract. One of the advantages of the inhalation route is the rapid absorption of drugs into the circulatory system, which is possible because of the large surface area of...
Development of the Oral Microbiota
Tracheostomy: Procedure and Tubes
Tracheostomy tubes can be made of semiflexible plastic (polyurethane or silicone), rigid plastic, or metal, and they come in...