Impact of an external lengthening procedure on the outcome of long-gap esophageal atresia at our hospitals

Long-gap esophageal atresia: gastric transposition or esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis? A systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate different surgical approaches to long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was done comparing gastric transposition versus esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis in infants with LGEA+/-TEF. The primary outcome was time to full oral feeds. Secondary outcomes were time to full enteric feeds, need for further surgery, growth, mortality, and postoperative adverse events.

RESULTS

No comparative studies were found. However, the literature was re-interrogated for non-comparative studies. Four hundred thirty-eight articles were identified and screened, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. All were case series. Forty-three infants underwent gastric transposition, and 106 had esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis. One study on gastric transposition reported time to full oral feeds, and one study in each group reported growth. Time to full enteric feeds was reported in one study in each group. 30% of infants had further surgery following gastric transposition, including hiatus hernia repair (5/43, 12%) and esophageal dilation (7/43, 16%). Following esophageal lengthening, 62/106 (58%) had anti-reflux surgery, 58/106 (55%) esophageal dilatation and 11/106 (10%) esophageal stricture resection. Anastomotic complications occurred in 13/43 (30%), gastrointestinal in 16/43 (37%), respiratory in 17/43 (40%), and nerve injury in 2/43 (5%) of the gastric transposition group. In the esophageal lengthening group, anastomotic complications occurred in 68/106 (64%), gastrointestinal in 62/106 (58%), respiratory in 6/106 (6%), and none sustained nerve injury. Each group had one death due to a cause not directly related to the surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the morbidity associated with both surgical procedures and the variety in reporting outcomes.

Surgical treatment and major complications Within the first year of life in newborns with long-gap esophageal atresia gross type A and B - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The surgical repair of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) is still a challenge and there is no consensus on the preferred method of reconstruction. We performed a systematic review of the surgical treatment of LGEA Gross type A and B with the primary aim to compare the postoperative complications related to the different methods within the first postoperative year.

METHODS

Systematic literature review on the surgical repair of LGEA Gross type A and B within the first year of life published from January 01, 1996 to November 01, 2016.

RESULTS

We included 57 articles involving a total of 326 patients of whom 289 had a Gross type A LGEA. Delayed primary anastomosis (DPA) was the most applied surgical method (68.4%) in both types, followed by gastric pull-up (GPU) (8.3%). Anastomotic stricture (53.7%), gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) (32.2%) and anastomotic leakage (22.7%) were the most common postoperative complications, with stricture and GER occurring more often after DPA (61.9% and 40.8% respectively) compared to other methods (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients in this review were managed by DPA and postoperative complications were common despite the surgical method, with anastomotic stricture and GER being most common after DPA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review of case series and case reports with no comparison group (level IV).

A new esophageal elongation technique for long-gap esophageal atresia: in vitro comparison of myotomy techniques

BACKGROUND

Complications such as stricture, leakage, recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula and mucosal pouch are commonly seen in myotomy techniques used for long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) treatments. Therefore, we think that there is a clear need for other techniques which would enable us to create more robust and longer esophagus in such cases. In this study, we reviewed multiple V-myotomy (VM) technique and the differences of the said technique with Livaditis circular myotomy (LM) and Kimura spiral myotomy (KM) techniques using literature as an aid.

METHODS

21 esophagus samples from 21 male lambs aged 12 months were used in vitro for the study. All esophageal samples were matched to have a length of 120 mm. Samples were divided into 3 groups of 7 and VM, LM and KM techniques were used in each group, respectively. Post-op esophagus lengths, elongation amount with each incision and perforation pressures were measured.

RESULTS

Post-op esophageal lengths were measured as 227, 210 and 200 mm for VM, LM and KM, respectively. Elongation amount per incision was measured as 5.1, 4 and 3.34 mm, again in previous order of VM, LM, and KM. Finally, perforation pressure following VM, LM, and KM was measured as 460, 400, and 410 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

VM was found to significantly increase total esophagus length and elongation per incision over LM and KM. In addition, VM was also shown to have a higher perforation pressure. Although in vivo live animal studies are required, we can say that VM can be used to create longer and robust esophagus.

Surgical management of oesophageal atresia

There have been major advances in the surgery for oesophageal atresia (OA) and tracheo-oesophageal fistula(TOF) with survival now exceeding 90%. The standard open approach to OA and distal TOF has been well described and essentially unchanged for the last 60 years. Improved survival in recent decades is most attributable to advances in neonatal anaesthesia and perioperative care. Recent surgical advances include the use of thoracoscopic surgery for the repair of OA/TOF and in some centres isolated OA, thereby minimising the long term musculo-skeletal morbidity associated with open surgery. The introduction of growth induction by external traction (Foker procedure) for the treatment of long-gap OA has provided an important tool enabling increased preservation of the native oesophagus. Despite this, long-gap OA still poses a number of challenges, and oesophageal replacement still may be required in some cases.