Pediatric surgery international · 2024
Balloon dilatation for congenital esophageal stenosis associated with esophageal atresia.
ОбзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deguchi Koichi, Kamiyama Masafumi, Masahata Kazunori, Nomura Motonari, Watanabe Miho, Ueno Takehisa, Tazuke Yuko, Okuyama Hiroomi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Congenital esophageal stenosis (CES) associated with esophageal atresia (EA) is rare, and no standard treatment has been established. We reviewed cases of EA-associated CES to assess the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes, especially the feasibility of endoscopic dilatation.
METHODS: We retrospectively examined patients with EA-associated CES. We also compared treatment outcomes of EA-associated CES with those of EA patients without CES who developed postoperative anastomotic stricture.
RESULTS: Among 44 patients with EA, ten had CES (23%). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between EA patients with CES and those without CES but with anastomotic stricture. All CES patients underwent balloon dilatation as initial treatment. Eight of nine patients (89%) were successfully treated by dilatation only, and one patient underwent surgical resection. The median number of balloon dilatations for CES was five (2-17), which was higher than that for anastomotic stricture in patients without CES (p = 0.012). Esophageal perforation occurred in five patients with CES (5/9, 56%) after dilatation, but all perforations were successfully managed conservatively with an uneventful post-dilatation course.
CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-three percent of patients with EA had CES. Although balloon dilatation for EA-associated CES required multiple treatments and carried a risk of perforation, balloon dilatation showed an 89% success rate and all perforations could be managed conservatively.
METHODS: We retrospectively examined patients with EA-associated CES. We also compared treatment outcomes of EA-associated CES with those of EA patients without CES who developed postoperative anastomotic stricture.
RESULTS: Among 44 patients with EA, ten had CES (23%). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between EA patients with CES and those without CES but with anastomotic stricture. All CES patients underwent balloon dilatation as initial treatment. Eight of nine patients (89%) were successfully treated by dilatation only, and one patient underwent surgical resection. The median number of balloon dilatations for CES was five (2-17), which was higher than that for anastomotic stricture in patients without CES (p = 0.012). Esophageal perforation occurred in five patients with CES (5/9, 56%) after dilatation, but all perforations were successfully managed conservatively with an uneventful post-dilatation course.
CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-three percent of patients with EA had CES. Although balloon dilatation for EA-associated CES required multiple treatments and carried a risk of perforation, balloon dilatation showed an 89% success rate and all perforations could be managed conservatively.