de Sousa Amaral Michaël, Vasseur Maurer Sabine, Reinberg Olivier, Divjak Natalie, de Buys Roessingh Anthony
Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Center of the Canton of Vaud (CHUV), 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Clin Med. 2024 Aug 9;13(16):4689. doi: 10.3390/jcm13164689.
Accidental caustic burns of the esophagus in children represent a significant global health challenge, often necessitating esophageal reconstruction. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and morbidity related to esophagus replacement with colonic and gastric tube transplants in a pediatric population followed for caustic stenosis. This retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary pediatric surgery unit for children treated from January 1989 to December 2022. We compared colonic and gastric tube esophageal replacement. Short term (within 30 days) and mid-term outcomes and complications were reviewed. Statistical evaluation was considered using a Chi-square test for categorical data analysis. A total of 124 children with caustic esophageal burns were included. Among them, 23 (18.5%) had a gastric tube transplant for esophagus replacement and 101 (81.5%) a colonic transplant. During surgical intervention, we found a significantly higher risk of complications when using a colonic transplant (34%, < 0.001). There was no significant statistical difference in postoperative short term and mid-term complications between the two techniques. Twenty-six (26%) of the children required a reoperation, with a higher risk in the gastric tube transplant group ( < 0.001). Endoscopic dilatation after surgery was also performed on a higher number of children who had received a gastric tube transplant ( = 0.005). Overall, 97.6% recovered full normal oral feeding. We found that colonic and gastric tube replacement are both good options for pediatric esophageal replacement after a caustic injury and show effectiveness over time. Gastric tube transplants carried a slightly higher risk of reoperations and a higher number of dilatations post-surgery. However, our groups are not really comparable, due to the much higher number of colonic transplants. Both surgical options have to be considered during surgery, and the choice depends on the anatomy of the patient. Our future research will focus on assessing long term quality of life and the potential risk of neoplastic complications.
儿童食管意外腐蚀性烧伤是一项重大的全球健康挑战,通常需要进行食管重建。本研究的目的是比较结肠和胃管移植食管替代术在接受腐蚀性狭窄治疗的儿科人群中的疗效和发病率。这项回顾性研究在一家三级儿科手术科室进行,研究对象为1989年1月至2022年12月期间接受治疗的儿童。我们比较了结肠和胃管食管替代术。回顾了短期(30天内)和中期结果及并发症。使用卡方检验进行分类数据分析的统计评估。总共纳入了124例腐蚀性食管烧伤儿童。其中,23例(18.5%)接受胃管移植进行食管替代,101例(81.5%)接受结肠移植。在手术干预期间,我们发现使用结肠移植时并发症风险显著更高(34%,<0.001)。两种技术在术后短期和中期并发症方面无显著统计学差异。26例(26%)儿童需要再次手术,胃管移植组风险更高(<0.001)。接受胃管移植的儿童术后接受内镜扩张的人数也更多(=0.005)。总体而言,97.6%的儿童恢复了完全正常的经口喂养。我们发现结肠和胃管替代术都是儿童腐蚀性损伤后食管替代的良好选择,且随着时间推移显示出有效性。胃管移植再次手术的风险略高,术后扩张次数更多。然而,由于结肠移植的数量多得多,我们的两组并不真正具有可比性。手术时两种手术选择都必须考虑,选择取决于患者的解剖结构。我们未来的研究将集中在评估长期生活质量和肿瘤并发症的潜在风险。