Pediatric esophageal substitution by gastric pull-up and gastric tube

In a Setting of Esophageal Replacement, Total Gastric Pull-Up has Fewer Complications than Partial Gastric Pull-Up

AIM

The main indications for an esophageal replacement (ER) are unresolved complex esophageal atresia (EA) and caustic strictures (CS). The use of different organs for replacement has been described. When the stomach is chosen, there are two ways to do a gastric pull-up: a partial (PGP) or a total pull-up (TGP). Few studies have been published comparing the different techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent ER by PGP or by TGT.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients who underwent gastric pull-up for ER in the last 18 years at the National Pediatric Hospital Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan were reviewed. The study is comparative, retro-prospective and longitudinal. Patients were divided in two groups according to the ER technique (PGP or TGP). We compared the following outcomes: duration of the operation, days of hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU), days of total hospitalization, time to initiation of oral feedings and rate of anastomosis dehiscence, incidence of anastomotic stenosis, need for re-operations, incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), incidence of tracheo-esophageal fistulas (TEF), incidence of dumping syndrome, incidence of gastric necrosis and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 92 patients included in the study: 70 in the PGP group (76%) and 26 in the TGP group (24%). The two groups were demographically equivalent. Patients in the TGP group had a statistically significant lower incidence of anastomotic dehiscence (22,7% versus 54,3%; p = 0.01) and dumping syndrome (13,6% versus 37,1%; p = 0.038). Patients in the TGP had lower incidence of anastomotic stenosis, although the difference was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of duration of the operation, postoperative days in the ICU, time to oral feedings, GERD, TEF or overall hospital stay. There were no cases of gastric necrosis. There were 3 deaths in the PGP group and one in the TGP group.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed benefits in the TGP group versus the PGP approach in terms of anastomotic dehiscence and dumping syndrome, as well as a trend toward a lower incidence of anastomotic stenosis. Based on this experience, we recommend the TGP approach for patients who need an esophageal replacement by a gastric pull-up.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

According to the Journal of Pediatric Surgery this research corresponds to type of study level III for retrospective comparative study.

Isoperistaltic gastric tube for long gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) in newborn, infants, and toddlers: a case-control study from a tertiary center

Background

Limited evidence exists about outcomes after gastric tube formation as "rescue" technique to avoid esophageal replacement in long gap esophageal atresia (LGEA). The last ERNICA Consensus Conference on the Management of LGEA has placed the techniques of gastric tubulization among the priorities for future research.

Aims

Evaluate personal experience with Isoperistaltic Gastric Tube (IGT) and compare its outcomes with other more popular techniques for LGEA.

Methods

A case-control study has been conducted. A retrospective monocentric analysis of LGEA patients (period: 2010-19) has been conducted in all consecutive IGT patients and each of these has been type matched with two cases of LGEA treated with other techniques. The follow-up (FU) considered was 24-months.

Results

IGT and controls showed no statistically significant differences regarding preoperative variables like sex, gestational age, birth weight, syndromes, and EA type. However, IGT patients had a significantly longer esophageal GAP under boost pressure (4.5 vertebral bodies vs. 3.6, p = 0.019) at time of surgery. The analysis showed no statistical difference among the two groups about perioperative outcomes, ICU, or overall postoperative stay. No differences have been shown between IGT and controls during the follow-up regarding GERD, esophagitis, fundoplication, dysphagia, vocal cord paralysis, stenosis, and dilatations, auxologic data, need for anastomosis revision, oral aversion, and death.

Conclusions

Isoperistaltic Gastric Tube is safe and effective even in LGEA patients with longer gaps, with good perioperative, post-operative and middle-term outcomes. This procedure may be considered as an alternative to avoid esophageal substitution when a primary anastomosis seems impossible for a residual gap after traction and growth techniques.

Nutritional Experiences of Parents of Children Who Had Gastric Transposition Surgery

This study aimed to understand the postoperative nutritional experiences of parents of children who had undergone gastric transposition surgery after corrosive esophageal injury. The study had a descriptive qualitative research design, and used a structured interview form as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The population of the study consisted of the parents of 12 children who had undergone gastric transposition surgery at the pediatric surgery clinic of a university hospital in an urban area in Turkey. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts using the MAXQDA program. Four main themes emerged and five supporting sub-themes were identified. The main themes were what we experienced in the postoperative nutrition process, coping with how we live, what we want to know, and our recommendations to healthcare professionals. Family-centered care should be a main focus when caring children who have had gastric transposition surgery, and children and their parents should be supported by a multidisciplinary team.

Functional, nutritional, and developmental assessment of gastric transposition and colonic interposition: Long-term follow-up outcome analysis

PURPOSE

The choice of Esophageal replacement (ER) depends on surgeons' preference and patients' anatomical condition. A cross-sectional study was done to compare the long-term outcomes of two methods of ER, Gastric transposition (GT) and Colonic interposition (CI).

METHODS

Children who had undergone ER from January 1997 to December 2017 with a minimum of two-year post-ER follow-up were evaluated by anthropometry, hepatobiliary scintigraphy, gastroesophageal reflux study, gastric emptying test, pulmonary function test and blood tests.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (Male:female=17:9) children were recruited. The median age at ER was 13 months (interquartile range 9-40 months) and mean follow-up post-ER was 116.7 ± 76.4 months (range 24-247 months). GT:CI was done in 15(57.7%):11(42.3%) cases. A greater number of abnormal oral contrast studies (p = 0.02) and re-operations (p = 0.05) were documented as baseline characteristics with CI group. The presence of gastroesophageal reflux 9/23(39.1%), duodenogastric reflux 6/24(25%), delayed gastric emptying 6/25(24%), abnormal pulmonary function test 14/22(63.6%) were documented during the study period. However, there was no significant(p>0.05) difference in nutritional, developmental and functional outcomes of both operative methods of ER in the study.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of nutritional, developmental and functional parameters in children after ER reveals good long-term results. There was no significant difference in CI and GT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Comparative study; II.

Reverse Gastric Tube Esophagoplasty with and without Lower Esophageal Stump Wrap - Comparison of Outcome

Aim and Objectives

The aim of the study is to compare the outcome in children born with long-gap esophageal atresia following reverse gastric tube esophagoplasty (RGTE) with or without the lower esophageal stump as a "fundoplication" wrap.

Materials and Methods

All children who underwent RGTE between 2008 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients in whom the lower esophagus (LE) had been excised as is done routinely in RGTE (Group 1) were compared with those where the LE was wrapped partially or completely around the intraabdominal neo-esophagus (Group 2). Both vagal nerves were preserved to the extent possible. Complications and final outcome, including weight and height centiles were assessed. Follow-up upper gastrointestinal contrast study and reflux scans were studied.

Results

Nineteen patients (mean age: 15.78 ± 5.02 months [range 10-30 months] at RGTE) were studied; nine in Group 1 and ten in Group 2. Both groups had similar early postoperative complications as well as the requirement of dilatation for anastomotic stricture. Dysphagia for solids was noticed in two patients with complete lower esophageal wrap (n = 4), one requiring removal. More patients in Group 2 had absent reflux (n = 7) compared to Group 1 (n = 3) (P = 0.118). At a mean follow-up period of 45.75 ± 18.77 months (14-84 months), Group 2 children reached better height and weight percentiles compared to Group 1.

Conclusion

We have described a novel method of using the LE as a "fundoplication" wrap following RGTE. Vagi should be preserved. Those with complete esophageal wrap may develop dysphagia to solids and this is, therefore, not recommended. Lower esophageal wrap patients appeared to have a better outcome in terms of growth and less reflux.

ERNICA Consensus Conference on the Management of Patients with Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: Perioperative, Surgical, and Long-Term Management

INTRODUCTION

 Evidence supporting best practice for long-gap esophageal atresia is limited. The European Reference Network for Rare Inherited Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA) organized a consensus conference on the management of patients with long-gap esophageal atresia based on expert opinion referring to the latest literature aiming to provide clear and uniform statements in this respect.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Twenty-four ERNICA representatives from nine European countries participated. The conference was prepared by item generation, item prioritization by online survey, formulation of a final list containing items on perioperative, surgical, and long-term management, and literature review. The 2-day conference was held in Berlin in November 2019. Anonymous voting was conducted via an internet-based system using a 1 to 9 scale. Consensus was defined as ≥75% of those voting scoring 6 to 9.

RESULTS

 Ninety-seven items were generated. Complete consensus (100%) was achieved on 56 items (58%), e.g., avoidance of a cervical esophagostomy, promotion of sham feeding, details of delayed anastomosis, thoracoscopic pouch mobilization and placement of traction sutures as novel technique, replacement techniques, and follow-up. Consensus ≥75% was achieved on 90 items (93%), e.g., definition of long gap, routine pyloroplasty in gastric transposition, and avoidance of preoperative bougienage to enable delayed anastomosis. Nineteen items (20%), e.g., methods of gap measurement were discussed controversially (range 1-9).

CONCLUSION

 This is the first consensus conference on the perioperative, surgical, and long-term management of patients with long-gap esophageal atresia. Substantial statements regarding esophageal reconstruction or replacement and follow-up were formulated which may contribute to improve patient care.

Gastric pull-up by the retrosternal route for esophageal replacement: Feasibility in a limited-resource scenario

OBJECTIVES

The authors herein report the results of esophageal replacement by gastric pull-up technique through the retrosternal route as an option for esophageal replacement in a resource-constrained setup.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data upon twenty-two consecutive patients (male:female = 17:5) with mean age 24.9 months (7 months-12 years) and mean weight 7.9 kg (4.2-32 kg) who underwent retrosternal gastric pull-up for esophageal atresia (n = 18; 16 atresia with distal fistula & 2 pure atresia) and corrosive injuries to the esophagus (n = 4) over the past 8 years are presented. The management protocol and surgical technique have been described. Observations parameters included indication for esophageal replacement, age at surgery, sex of the child and other demographic details, clinical and operative findings, post-operative outcomes and follow-up details.

RESULTS

Retrosternal gastric pull-up could be performed in all cases with no mortality or graft loss. Of 22, 20 cases were extubated on-table and 2 cases were extubated within 48 hours of surgery. Mean operative duration was 265 min (range: 175 min to 310 min) and blood loss was 115.3 ml (range: 80-400 ml). Dense vascular adhesions in the region of the esophageal hiatus were encountered in patients with abdominal esophagostomy (n = 4) which were probably related to the local dissection at the time of previous surgery. Minor anastomotic leak was observed in 8 of 22 patients which settled spontaneously over 21 days mean period (range: 18 to 31 days). Antegrade dilatation was required in 3 of 8 cases with minor leak. None of them required revision of anastomosis. Mean follow-up duration is 63 months (range: 11 months - 94 months). Weight gain after surgery was close to or beyond the 25th centile. Symptoms of dumping syndrome or GER were not observed in our cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our data have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of esophageal replacement by gastric transposition through the retrosternal route in a resource-limited setup. No significant difference has been observed from the results and complications reported in literature for the same procedure.

TYPE OF STUDY

Prospective observational study / treatment study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

14 Years’ experience of esophageal replacement surgeries

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

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

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

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.