14 Years' experience of esophageal replacement surgeries.
Colonic interposition
Corrosive strictures
Esophageal atresia
Esophageal replacement
Gastric pull-up
Jejunal transposition
LMIC
Retrosternal route
Trans hiatal route
Journal
Pediatric surgery international
ISSN: 1437-9813
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Surg Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8609169
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
accepted:
05
03
2020
pubmed:
3
4
2020
medline:
20
11
2020
entrez:
3
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Esophageal replacement is a challenge to the therapeutic skills of surgeons and a technically demanding operation in the pediatric age group. Various conduits and routes have been described in the literature, each with their specific advantages and disadvantages. We carried out this retrospective study to share our experience of esophageal replacement. This study was conducted at the department of pediatric surgery The Children's Hospital and The Institute of Child Health, Lahore. The records of patients treated for esophageal replacement were reviewed. The patients under follow-up were called for clinical evaluation and assessed of long terms complications if any. A total of 93 patients with esophageal replacement were included in the study. Esophageal replacement was done with gastric transposition in 84 cases (90%), colon interposition in 7 cases (7.5%) including one case of redo colonic interposition, and jejunal interposition in 2 cases (2%). Routes of esophageal replacement were trans-hiatal in 71 (76%), retrosternal in 13 (14%), and trans-hiatal with thoracotomy in 9 (10%) patients. Postoperatively, all of the conduits maintained viability. Wound infection was seen in 10 (11%), wound dehiscence in 5 (5%), anastomotic leak in 9 (10%), anastomotic stenosis in 12 (13%), fistula formation in 4 (4%), aortic injury 1 (1%), dumping syndrome 8 (9%), reflux 18 (19%), dysphagia 15 (16%) and death occurred in 12 patients (13%). There are problems with esophageal replacement in developing countries. In this context, gastric conduit appeared as the best conduit for esophageal replacement, using the trans-hiatal route for replacement, in the authors' experience.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Esophageal replacement is a challenge to the therapeutic skills of surgeons and a technically demanding operation in the pediatric age group. Various conduits and routes have been described in the literature, each with their specific advantages and disadvantages. We carried out this retrospective study to share our experience of esophageal replacement.
METHODOLOGY
METHODS
This study was conducted at the department of pediatric surgery The Children's Hospital and The Institute of Child Health, Lahore. The records of patients treated for esophageal replacement were reviewed. The patients under follow-up were called for clinical evaluation and assessed of long terms complications if any.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 93 patients with esophageal replacement were included in the study. Esophageal replacement was done with gastric transposition in 84 cases (90%), colon interposition in 7 cases (7.5%) including one case of redo colonic interposition, and jejunal interposition in 2 cases (2%). Routes of esophageal replacement were trans-hiatal in 71 (76%), retrosternal in 13 (14%), and trans-hiatal with thoracotomy in 9 (10%) patients. Postoperatively, all of the conduits maintained viability. Wound infection was seen in 10 (11%), wound dehiscence in 5 (5%), anastomotic leak in 9 (10%), anastomotic stenosis in 12 (13%), fistula formation in 4 (4%), aortic injury 1 (1%), dumping syndrome 8 (9%), reflux 18 (19%), dysphagia 15 (16%) and death occurred in 12 patients (13%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There are problems with esophageal replacement in developing countries. In this context, gastric conduit appeared as the best conduit for esophageal replacement, using the trans-hiatal route for replacement, in the authors' experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32236666
doi: 10.1007/s00383-020-04649-5
pii: 10.1007/s00383-020-04649-5
pmc: PMC7223057
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
835-841Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Mar;39(3):276-81; discussion 276-81
pubmed: 15017537
Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2012 Sep-Dec;9(3):210-6
pubmed: 23250242
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Mar;6(2):137-143
pubmed: 28447002
J Paediatr Child Health. 2017 Dec;53(12):1159-1166
pubmed: 28799279
Ann Surg. 2015 May;261(5):894-901
pubmed: 24850062
Ann Surg. 2002 Oct;236(4):531-9; discussion 539-41
pubmed: 12368682
Dis Esophagus. 2016 Nov;29(8):1002-1006
pubmed: 26354288
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2016 May 4;5(1):47-51
pubmed: 27151896
J Pediatr Surg. 2007 Sep;42(9):1471-7
pubmed: 17848233
J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Dec;49(12):1762-6
pubmed: 25487479
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 Jan;90(1):7-12
pubmed: 18201490
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Sep;50(9):1457-61
pubmed: 25957027
J Pediatr Surg. 2013 Apr;48(4):887-92
pubmed: 23583153
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2016 Jul-Sep;21(3):110-4
pubmed: 27365902
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jan;101(1):266-73
pubmed: 26377064
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008 Oct;47(4):458-62
pubmed: 18852638
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(21):e6942
pubmed: 28538385
J Pediatr Surg. 2012 Mar;47(3):462-6
pubmed: 22424338
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2016 Jul-Sep;21(3):98-105
pubmed: 27365900
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Jul;39(7):1084-90
pubmed: 15213904
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Sep;52(9):1398-1408
pubmed: 28625693
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2018 Feb;28(1):22-29
pubmed: 28946161