BACKGROUND: The management of neonates with long-gap esophageal atresia without a fistula (type A) is complex. Options for esophageal reconstruction include use of the native esophagus or replacement with colon, stomach, or small bowel. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of children variously treated with this defect. METHODS: The course of 23 infants with type A esophageal atresia were retrospectively reviewed. Diagnosis was achieved by plain radiographs and endoscopy. The mean gestational age was 33.9 weeks, and the birth weight was 1.87 kilograms. RESULTS: Two of nine infants with serious associated defects died early, and one infant with brain damage was not reconstructed. Initial treatment consisted of gastrostomy and proximal pouch suction (n = 10) or cervical esophagostomy (n = 10). Reconstructive procedures were performed in 20 infants, including colon interposition in eight infants, reversed gastric tube in two infants, and delayed primary esophageal repair (often with myotomy) in 10 infants. Secondary procedures were required for three infants with failed colons, one infant with a failed gastric tube, and one infant with a native esophageal disruption. Long-term satisfaction was 90% with esophagus, 63% with colon, and 50% with stomach. CONCLUSIONS: When possible, native esophageal reconstruction is the procedure of choice rather than esophageal replacement.
BACKGROUND: The management of neonates with long-gap esophageal atresia without a fistula (type A) is complex. Options for esophageal reconstruction include use of the native esophagus or replacement with colon, stomach, or small bowel. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of children variously treated with this defect. METHODS: The course of 23 infants with type A esophageal atresia were retrospectively reviewed. Diagnosis was achieved by plain radiographs and endoscopy. The mean gestational age was 33.9 weeks, and the birth weight was 1.87 kilograms. RESULTS: Two of nine infants with serious associated defects died early, and one infant with brain damage was not reconstructed. Initial treatment consisted of gastrostomy and proximal pouch suction (n = 10) or cervical esophagostomy (n = 10). Reconstructive procedures were performed in 20 infants, including colon interposition in eight infants, reversed gastric tube in two infants, and delayed primary esophageal repair (often with myotomy) in 10 infants. Secondary procedures were required for three infants with failed colons, one infant with a failed gastric tube, and one infant with a native esophageal disruption. Long-term satisfaction was 90% with esophagus, 63% with colon, and 50% with stomach. CONCLUSIONS: When possible, native esophageal reconstruction is the procedure of choice rather than esophageal replacement.
Authors: Ronald B Hirschl; Dani Yardeni; Keith Oldham; Neil Sherman; Leo Siplovich; Eitan Gross; Raphael Udassin; Zehavi Cohen; Hagith Nagar; James D Geiger; Arnold G Coran Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969