PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcome in 173 children (104 M, 69 F) undergoing transposition since 1981. METHODS: The most common indications for esophageal replacement included failed repair of different varieties of esophageal atresia (127), caustic injury (23), and peptic strictures (8). A total of 81% of the patients were referred from other hospitals (50% from other countries). Age at operation ranged from 7 days to 17 years. The gastric transposition was performed using blunt mediastinal dissection only in 90 patients with an additional 81 patients undergoing lateral thoracotomy. The retrosternal position was used in 2 patients. RESULTS: There were no graft failures including those who had previously failed gastric tube or Scharlilike operations. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 12% (all but 1 resolved spontaneously). Anastomotic stricture requiring dilatation occurred in 19.6%. Half of these patients had previous caustic esophageal injury. There were 9 deaths in the group (5.2%). One death occurred intraoperatively, 5 in the early postoperative period, and there were 3 late deaths. In more than 90% of our patients, the outcome was considered good to excellent in terms of absence of swallowing difficulties or other gastrointestinal symptoms. Many, however, preferred to eat small frequent meals. Poor outcome was particularly associated with multiple previous attempts at esophageal salvage. There was no deterioration in the function of the gastric transposition in those patients followed up for more than 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric transposition for esophageal substitution is an acceptable procedure. It is attended by 5% mortality and a 12% leak rate. A total of 19.6% of the patients needed anastomotic dilatation for stricture. In the long term, good function has been maintained. Gastric transposition compares favorably with alternative methods of esophageal replacement.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcome in 173 children (104 M, 69 F) undergoing transposition since 1981. METHODS: The most common indications for esophageal replacement included failed repair of different varieties of esophageal atresia (127), caustic injury (23), and peptic strictures (8). A total of 81% of the patients were referred from other hospitals (50% from other countries). Age at operation ranged from 7 days to 17 years. The gastric transposition was performed using blunt mediastinal dissection only in 90 patients with an additional 81 patients undergoing lateral thoracotomy. The retrosternal position was used in 2 patients. RESULTS: There were no graft failures including those who had previously failed gastric tube or Scharlilike operations. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 12% (all but 1 resolved spontaneously). Anastomotic stricture requiring dilatation occurred in 19.6%. Half of these patients had previous caustic esophageal injury. There were 9 deaths in the group (5.2%). One death occurred intraoperatively, 5 in the early postoperative period, and there were 3 late deaths. In more than 90% of our patients, the outcome was considered good to excellent in terms of absence of swallowing difficulties or other gastrointestinal symptoms. Many, however, preferred to eat small frequent meals. Poor outcome was particularly associated with multiple previous attempts at esophageal salvage. There was no deterioration in the function of the gastric transposition in those patients followed up for more than 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric transposition for esophageal substitution is an acceptable procedure. It is attended by 5% mortality and a 12% leak rate. A total of 19.6% of the patients needed anastomotic dilatation for stricture. In the long term, good function has been maintained. Gastric transposition compares favorably with alternative methods of esophageal replacement.
Authors: Giorgia Totonelli; Panagiotis Maghsoudlou; Jonathan M Fishman; Giuseppe Orlando; Tahera Ansari; Paul Sibbons; Martin A Birchall; Agostino Pierro; Simon Eaton; Paolo De Coppi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 5.742