A two-center comparative study of gastric pull-up and jejunal interposition for long gap esophageal atresia

Abstract Purpose When restoration of the anatomical continuity in case of long gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) is not feasible, esophageal replacement surgery becomes mandatory. The aim of this paper is to critically compare the experience of two tertiary referral centers in The Netherlands performing...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pediatric surgery 2015-04, Vol.50 (4), p.535-539
Main Authors: Gallo, Gabriele, Zwaveling, Sander, Van der Zee, David C, Bax, Klaas N, de Langen, Zacharias J, Hulscher, Jan B.F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Anastomosis, Surgical
Child
Child, Preschool
Esophageal Atresia
Esophageal Atresia - surgery
Esophageal replacement
Esophagoplasty - methods
Female
Gastric pull-up
Gastric transposition
Humans
Infant
Jejunal interposition
Jejunum - surgery
Long-gap
Male
Pediatrics
Retrospective Studies
Stomach - surgery
Surgery
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Purpose When restoration of the anatomical continuity in case of long gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) is not feasible, esophageal replacement surgery becomes mandatory. The aim of this paper is to critically compare the experience of two tertiary referral centers in The Netherlands performing either gastric pull-up (GPU) or jejunal interposition (JI). Methods Retrospective chart review of all the patients with LGEA who underwent GPU in the University Medical Center Groningen and JI in the University Medical Center Utrecht. Main endpoints were short term morbidity, mortality and long term functional outcome (digestive functioning and growth). Descriptive analyses conducted using Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Results Nine children underwent GPU and 15 JI. Median age (years) at last follow up was fourteen (GPU) and eight (JI). One patient died, 10 years after JI. No grafts were lost. Perioperative anastomotic complications were reported more often after JI (73% vs. 22%, p = 0.03). However reintervention rate was the same in both groups (33%). Among long term outcomes, functional obstruction was not registered after GPU, while it was recorded in 46% after JI (p = 0.02). No other significant differences were found apart from some tendencies concerning full oral nutrition and gastroesophageal reflux (GPU > JI). Conclusion Comparative data from this study reveal no mortality but significant morbidity in both groups. No graft was lost. Although not statistically different as a result of small patient numbers, clinically important differences regarding gastrointestinal system were noted. Growth should be monitored closely in both groups.
ISSN:0022-3468
1531-5037
DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.05.026