Journal of pediatric surgery · 2004
Is routine dilatation after repair of esophageal atresia with distal fistula better than dilatation when symptoms arise? Comparison of results of two European pediatric surgical centers.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Koivusalo A, Turunen P, Rintala R J, van der Zee D C, Lindahl H, Bax N M A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether routine dilatation of the anastomosis after repair of an esophageal atresia with distal fistula (EADF) is superior to a wait-and-see policy with dilatation only when symptoms arise.
METHODS: The records of 100 consecutive patients operated on for EADF in 2 European pediatric surgical centers (A [n = 63], B [n = 37]) were reviewed. In center A, dilatation of the anastomosis was carried out in symptomatic cases only, whereas in center B dilatation was begun 3 weeks postoperatively and repeated every 1-3 weeks until a stable diameter of 10 mm was reached. Particular attention was paid to the number of dilatations per patient, dilatation-related complications, and differences in results after 2 years.
RESULTS: The patient materials of both centers did not differ with respect to the incidence of prematurity, tracheomalacia, gastroesophageal reflux (GER), and major postoperative complications. The incidence of associated anomalies was higher in center B (P < .05). In center A, 26 of 63 patients underwent dilatation; in center B, all 37 patients were dilated (P < .05). Median number of dilatations per patient was 4 in center A and 7 in center B (P < .05). In center A, 23 of 26 and in center B, 20 of 37 of the patients received medical treatment for GER at the time of the dilatations. Dilatation-related complications developed in 7 of 26 patients of center A and in 3 of 37 patients in the center B (P value, not significant). The median primary hospital stay was 24 days in center A and 33 days in center B (P < .05), median secondary hospital stay for dilatation was 6 days in center A and 13 days in center B (P < .05). After 2 years of follow-up, the incidence of dysphagia, respiratory problems, or bolus obstruction did not differ significantly between the 2 centers.
CONCLUSIONS: A wait-and-see policy and dilatations based on clinical indications for patients with repaired EADF is superior to routine dilatations. It appears that more than half of the patients do not require dilatations at all.
METHODS: The records of 100 consecutive patients operated on for EADF in 2 European pediatric surgical centers (A [n = 63], B [n = 37]) were reviewed. In center A, dilatation of the anastomosis was carried out in symptomatic cases only, whereas in center B dilatation was begun 3 weeks postoperatively and repeated every 1-3 weeks until a stable diameter of 10 mm was reached. Particular attention was paid to the number of dilatations per patient, dilatation-related complications, and differences in results after 2 years.
RESULTS: The patient materials of both centers did not differ with respect to the incidence of prematurity, tracheomalacia, gastroesophageal reflux (GER), and major postoperative complications. The incidence of associated anomalies was higher in center B (P < .05). In center A, 26 of 63 patients underwent dilatation; in center B, all 37 patients were dilated (P < .05). Median number of dilatations per patient was 4 in center A and 7 in center B (P < .05). In center A, 23 of 26 and in center B, 20 of 37 of the patients received medical treatment for GER at the time of the dilatations. Dilatation-related complications developed in 7 of 26 patients of center A and in 3 of 37 patients in the center B (P value, not significant). The median primary hospital stay was 24 days in center A and 33 days in center B (P < .05), median secondary hospital stay for dilatation was 6 days in center A and 13 days in center B (P < .05). After 2 years of follow-up, the incidence of dysphagia, respiratory problems, or bolus obstruction did not differ significantly between the 2 centers.
CONCLUSIONS: A wait-and-see policy and dilatations based on clinical indications for patients with repaired EADF is superior to routine dilatations. It appears that more than half of the patients do not require dilatations at all.