BACKGROUND: Esophageal dilatation is usually regarded as an effective therapy in a majority of esophageal stenosis in childhood. However, the limited number of pediatric data does not allow definite conclusions on indications and complications of such a procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of 33 children whose esophageal stenosis had been treated by dilatation by the same operator between 1983 and 1992 were retrospectively reviewed. The structure mechanisms were: group 1: repair of esophageal atresia (n = 9), group 2: caustic esophagitis (n = 6), group 3: peptic esophagitis (n = 12), group 4: unclassified structures (congenital esophageal stenosis, achalasia) (n = 6). The dilatations were performed under general anesthesia, and the dilatator guide was introduced under endoscopic control. Two methods were used: Savary esophageal bougies and balloon dilatation. A thoracic X-ray was systematically performed after each dilatation. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen dilatations (3.5 dilatations/child) were performed (range: 1-32 dilatations). Twenty-five of the 33 children (76%) were dramatically improved after mechanical dilatation. Esophageal dilatation was unsuccessful in the eight other patients, seven of them requiring a surgical repair. Complications occurred in 3.4% of the dilatations: one esophageal perforation, one pneumomediastinum and two cardiac arrests (one of vagal origin and 1 after accidental extubation). All patients survived. Efficacy, duration of dilatation and complication rates were not similar in the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal dilatation should be considered as a simple and effective procedure when strict security rules are respected by a trained operator.
BACKGROUND: Esophageal dilatation is usually regarded as an effective therapy in a majority of esophageal stenosis in childhood. However, the limited number of pediatric data does not allow definite conclusions on indications and complications of such a procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of 33 children whose esophageal stenosis had been treated by dilatation by the same operator between 1983 and 1992 were retrospectively reviewed. The structure mechanisms were: group 1: repair of esophageal atresia (n = 9), group 2: caustic esophagitis (n = 6), group 3: peptic esophagitis (n = 12), group 4: unclassified structures (congenital esophageal stenosis, achalasia) (n = 6). The dilatations were performed under general anesthesia, and the dilatator guide was introduced under endoscopic control. Two methods were used: Savary esophageal bougies and balloon dilatation. A thoracic X-ray was systematically performed after each dilatation. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen dilatations (3.5 dilatations/child) were performed (range: 1-32 dilatations). Twenty-five of the 33 children (76%) were dramatically improved after mechanical dilatation. Esophageal dilatation was unsuccessful in the eight other patients, seven of them requiring a surgical repair. Complications occurred in 3.4% of the dilatations: one esophageal perforation, one pneumomediastinum and two cardiac arrests (one of vagal origin and 1 after accidental extubation). All patients survived. Efficacy, duration of dilatation and complication rates were not similar in the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal dilatation should be considered as a simple and effective procedure when strict security rules are respected by a trained operator.
Authors: Jujju Jacob Kurian; Susan Jehangir; Isaac Tharu Varghese; Reju Joseph Thomas; John Mathai; Sampath Karl Journal: J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg Date: 2016 Jul-Sep