Download PDF
Eur J Pediatr Surg 2020; 30(01): 111-116
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3402713
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Indications, Surgical Complications, and Long-Term Outcomes in Pediatric Esophageal Reconstructions with Pedicled Jejunal Interposition Graft

Antti Koivusalo
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Janne Suominen
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Jukka Salminen
2   Department of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Mikko Pakarinen
1   Department of Pediatric Surgery, Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 May 2019

03 December 2019

Publication Date:
01 January 2020 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Several surgical techniques are available for pediatric esophageal reconstruction. We started to use pedicled jejunum interposition graft (PJIG) because other techniques had significant long-term complications. In this retrospective study, the indications, surgical complications, and long-term outcomes were assessed in patients with PJIG.

Materials and Methods With ethical consent, we reviewed the hospital records of 14 patients (7 females) who from 2005 to 2019 underwent a total of 16 esophageal reconstructions with PJIG.

Results Median age at PJIG was 1.6 (range: 0.2–15) years. Underlying conditions were esophageal atresia (EA) (n = 11) or native esophagus lost by trauma or infection (n = 3). Eight patients with EA underwent PJIG as primary reconstruction and three as a rescue operation after complications in primary repair. Significant surgical complications occurred in 43% of patients. Major reoperations in six (43%) patients included resection and reanastomosis of strictured proximal PJIG (n = 1) and redo PJIG after failure of the first operation (n = 2). Surgical mortality was nil. After a median follow-up of 6.5 (range: 0.7–14) years, 13 (93%) patients survived, and 1 died of congenital heart disease. PJIG failed in three (23%) survivors of whom two underwent graft removal because of life-threatening aspiration and one did not start oral feeds at all. Ten survivors (77%) have full enteral feeds. Respiratory function in the survivors is satisfactory. Two patients have moderate and three mild gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.

Conclusion PJIG was a functional option for a variety of conditions that required esophageal reconstruction. However, significant early and late complications required major surgical revisions.

Keywords

esophageal reconstruction - jejunal interposition - surgical complications - long-term outcomes
 

  • References

  • 1 Koivusalo AI, Sistonen SJ, Lindahl HG, Rintala RJ, Pakarinen MP. Long-term outcomes of oesophageal atresia without or with proximal tracheooesophageal fistula - Gross types A and B. J Pediatr Surg 2017; 52 (10) 1571-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bairdain S, Hamilton TE, Smithers CJ. , et al. Foker process for the correction of long gap esophageal atresia: primary treatment versus secondary treatment after prior esophageal surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2015; 50 (06) 933-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van der Zee DC, Gallo G, Tytgat SH. Thoracoscopic traction technique in long gap esophageal atresia: entering a new era. Surg Endosc 2015; 29 (11) 3324-3330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Heimlich HJ. Reversed gastric tube (RGT) esophagoplasty for failure of colon, jejunum and prosthetic interpositions. Ann Surg 1975; 182 (02) 154-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bax NM, van der Zee DC. Jejunal pedicle grafts for reconstruction of the esophagus in children. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42 (02) 363-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Katsura S, Ishikawa Y, Okayama G. Transplantation of the partially resected middle esophagus with a jejunal graft. Ann Surg 1958; 147 (02) 146-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hetzel DJ, Dent J, Reed WD. , et al. Healing and relapse of severe peptic esophagitis after treatment with omeprazole. Gastroenterology 1988; 95 (04) 903-912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ismail-Beigi F, Horton PF, Pope II CE. Histological consequences of gastroesophageal reflux in man. Gastroenterology 1970; 58 (02) 163-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kunisaki SM, Coran AG. Esophageal replacement. Semin Pediatr Surg 2017; 26 (02) 105-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nakamura T, Inokuchi K, Sugimachi K. Use of revascularized jejunum as a free graft for cervical esophagus. Jpn J Surg 1975; 5 (02) 92-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gallo G, Zwaveling S, Groen H, Van der Zee D, Hulscher J. Long-gap esophageal atresia: a meta-analysis of jejunal interposition, colon interposition, and gastric pull-up. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2012; 22 (06) 420-425
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gallo G, Zwaveling S, Van der Zee DC, Bax KN, de Langen ZJ, Hulscher JB. A two-center comparative study of gastric pull-up and jejunal interposition for long gap esophageal atresia. J Pediatr Surg 2015; 50 (04) 535-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bax NM, Van Renterghem KM. Ileal pedicle grafting for esophageal replacement in children. Pediatr Surg Int 2005; 21 (05) 369-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gallo G, Vrijlandt EJLE, Arets HGM. , et al. Respiratory function after esophageal replacement in children. J Pediatr Surg 2017; 52 (11) 1736-1741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Awad K, Jaffray B. Oesophageal replacement with stomach: a personal series and review of published experience. J Paediatr Child Health 2017; 53 (12) 1159-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar