The Effect of Botulinum Toxin Type A Injections on Stricture Formation, Leakage Rates, Esophageal Elongation, and Anastomotic Healing Following Primary Anastomosis in a Long- and Short-Gap Esophageal Atresia Model - A Protocol for a Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Trial in Pigs.
anastomotic stricture
botulinum toxin
oesophageal atresia
Journal
International journal of surgery protocols
ISSN: 2468-3574
Titre abrégé: Int J Surg Protoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101758186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
13
07
2021
accepted:
27
07
2021
entrez:
26
8
2021
pubmed:
27
8
2021
medline:
27
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Esophageal atresia (EA) is a congenital malformation affecting 1:3000-4500 newborns. Approximately 15% have a long-gap EA (LGEA), in which case a primary anastomosis is often impossible to achieve. To create continuity of the esophagus patients instead have to undergo lengthening procedures or organ interpositions; methods associated with high morbidity and poor functional outcomes. Esophageal injections of Botulinum Toxin Type A (BTX-A) could enable primary anastomosis and mitigate stricture formation through decreased tissue tension. In this randomized controlled blinded animal trial, 24 pigs are divided into a long- or short-gap EA group (LGEA and SGEA, respectively) and randomized to receive BTX-A or isotonic saline injections. In the LGEA group, injections are given endoscopically in the esophageal musculature. After seven days, a 3 cm esophageal resection and primary anastomosis is performed. In the SGEA group, a 1 cm esophageal resection and primary anastomosis is performed, followed by intraoperative injections of BTX-A or isotonic saline. After 14 days, stricture formation, presence of leakage, and esophageal compliance is assessed using endoscopic and manometric techniques, and in vivo and ex vivo contrast radiography. Tissue elongation is evaluated in a stretch-tension test, and the esophagus is assessed histologically to evaluate anastomotic healing. The study complies with the ARRIVE guidelines for animal studies and has been approved by the Danish Animal Experimentation Council. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. The optimal management of long-gap esophageal atresia remains controversialPrimary anastomosis could improve functional outcomes and reduce complicationsBotulinum Toxin Type A decreases tissue tension and could facilitate anastomosisReduced tension could further abate the risk for anastomotic stricture and leakageWe present a model to evaluate the method in long- and short-gap esophageal atresia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Esophageal atresia (EA) is a congenital malformation affecting 1:3000-4500 newborns. Approximately 15% have a long-gap EA (LGEA), in which case a primary anastomosis is often impossible to achieve. To create continuity of the esophagus patients instead have to undergo lengthening procedures or organ interpositions; methods associated with high morbidity and poor functional outcomes. Esophageal injections of Botulinum Toxin Type A (BTX-A) could enable primary anastomosis and mitigate stricture formation through decreased tissue tension.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
In this randomized controlled blinded animal trial, 24 pigs are divided into a long- or short-gap EA group (LGEA and SGEA, respectively) and randomized to receive BTX-A or isotonic saline injections. In the LGEA group, injections are given endoscopically in the esophageal musculature. After seven days, a 3 cm esophageal resection and primary anastomosis is performed. In the SGEA group, a 1 cm esophageal resection and primary anastomosis is performed, followed by intraoperative injections of BTX-A or isotonic saline. After 14 days, stricture formation, presence of leakage, and esophageal compliance is assessed using endoscopic and manometric techniques, and in vivo and ex vivo contrast radiography. Tissue elongation is evaluated in a stretch-tension test, and the esophagus is assessed histologically to evaluate anastomotic healing.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
BACKGROUND
The study complies with the ARRIVE guidelines for animal studies and has been approved by the Danish Animal Experimentation Council. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.
HIGHLIGHTS
CONCLUSIONS
The optimal management of long-gap esophageal atresia remains controversialPrimary anastomosis could improve functional outcomes and reduce complicationsBotulinum Toxin Type A decreases tissue tension and could facilitate anastomosisReduced tension could further abate the risk for anastomotic stricture and leakageWe present a model to evaluate the method in long- and short-gap esophageal atresia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34435166
doi: 10.29337/ijsp.156
pmc: PMC8362621
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
171-177Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018 Sep;100(7):e185-e187
pubmed: 30112934
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Feb;27(1):56-60
pubmed: 27699731
N Engl J Med. 1991 Apr 25;324(17):1186-94
pubmed: 2011163
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2020 Dec;30(6):517-523
pubmed: 31858493
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Aug;52(8):1255-1259
pubmed: 28094013
Pediatr Surg Int. 2012 Mar;28(3):249-57
pubmed: 22020495
Int Urol Nephrol. 2011 Sep;43(3):655-62
pubmed: 21110094
Dis Esophagus. 2015 Apr;28(3):216-23
pubmed: 24456536
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Jun;26(3):282-6
pubmed: 26024208
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2019 Feb;29(1):39-48
pubmed: 30112748
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Jan;50(1):107-10
pubmed: 25598104
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004 Mar-Apr;15(2):124-8; discussion 128
pubmed: 15014940
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(21):e6942
pubmed: 28538385
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Aug;52(8):1245-1251
pubmed: 27993359
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007 May 11;2:24
pubmed: 17498283
Semin Pediatr Surg. 2009 Feb;18(1):44-9
pubmed: 19103422
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2019 Feb;29(1):75-84
pubmed: 30261518
J Med Genet. 2006 Jul;43(7):545-54
pubmed: 16299066
Int J Urol. 2012 Mar;19(3):202-15
pubmed: 22220916
Front Pediatr. 2017 May 29;5:120
pubmed: 28611969
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2016 Nov;63(5):550-570
pubmed: 27579697
Pediatr Surg Int. 2016 Sep;32(9):881-6
pubmed: 27461432
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2010 Jun;12(3):215-22
pubmed: 20425471
J Pediatr Surg. 2013 Oct;48(10):2032-5
pubmed: 24094953
J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Sep;49(9):1343-6
pubmed: 25148734
J Pediatr Surg. 2019 Mar;54(3):423-428
pubmed: 30220451