Abstract
The operative management of patients born with long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) remains a major challenge for most pediatric surgeons, due to the rarity and complex nature of this malformation. In LGEA, the distance between the proximal and distal esophageal end is too wide, making a primary anastomosis often impossible. Still, every effort should be made to preserve the native esophagus as no other conduit can replace its function in transporting food from the oral cavity to the stomach satisfactorily. In 1981, Puri et al. observed that in newborns with LGEA spontaneous growth and hypertrophy of the two segments occur at a rate faster than overall somatic growth in the absence of any form of mechanical stretching, traction or bouginage. They further noted that maximal natural growth arises in the first 8–12 weeks of life, stimulated by the swallowing reflex and reflux of gastric contents into the lower esophageal pouch. Since then, creation of an initial gastrostomy and continuous suction of the upper esophageal pouch followed by delayed primary anastomosis at approximately 3 months of age has been widely accepted as the preferred treatment option in most LGEA cases, generally providing good functional results. The current article offers a comprehensive update on the various aspects and challenges of this technique including initial preoperative management and subsequent gap assessment, while also discussing potential postoperative complications and long-term outcome.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Esophageal atresia encompasses a spectrum of complex congenital abnormalities of the esophagus, most likely resulting from embryological disruptions during normal foregut separation [1,2,3,4]. Its global prevalence, established from national and international registries, currently ranges between 1.27 and 4.55 per 10,000 births [5, 6]. Pure esophageal atresia without tracheoesophageal fistula is a rarer type of malformation, occurring in approximately 8% of neonates born with esophageal atresia and an estimated prevalence of 1 in 40,000 births [7]. Still, there remains a lack of consensus on the precise definition and determination of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) [8,9,10,11,12]. While many discussions have focused mainly on pure esophageal atresia [13, 14], the majority of LGEA cases actually present in association with a distal tracheoesophageal fistula [15].
Despite significant improvements in prenatal diagnosis, most patients with esophageal atresia continue to be diagnosed after birth [16, 17]. Nevertheless, it remains a life-threatening condition, and without surgical intervention, it is not compatible with life. William Ladd reported the first survivors of a staged operative treatment with primary gastrostomy and delayed esophageal reconstruction in 1939 [18, 19]. The first successful primary repair of esophageal atresia was performed by Cameron Haight in 1941 [20, 21]. Subsequently, survival post reconstructive surgery has increased from universally fatal to almost 95% [22, 23], which is likely due to advances in neonatal intensive care and anesthesia, refined surgical techniques, parenteral nutrition and antibiotics [24, 25]. Nowadays, even newborns with very low birth weight and severe cardiac defects survive [26]. However, the high prevalence of prematurity, coexisting anomalies and LGEA frequently complicate the care of these patients and may prevent an immediate primary repair [27, 28]. Thus, operative management of neonates with LGEA still represents a major challenge for most pediatric surgeons, in particular when primary end-to-end anastomosis is not achievable [29,30,31]. The surgical approach is generally determined by the distance between the proximal and distal esophageal segment and the presence of a tracheoesophageal fistula. Normally, every effort should be made to preserve the native esophagus as no other conduit can replace its function in transporting food from the oral cavity to the stomach satisfactorily [32]. During the past decades, there have been substantial developments in the operative concepts of LGEA repair, and it is widely recognized today that delayed primary anastomosis of the esophagus is not only attainable but also the preferred treatment option in most cases [33]. This article offers a comprehensive update on the various aspects and challenges of this technique including initial preoperative management and subsequent gap assessment, while also discussing potential postoperative complications and long-term results.
Historical background
Over the years, various surgical approaches have been suggested to decrease the distance between the two esophageal ends in LGEA to achieve a delayed primary anastomosis. In 1965, Howard and Meyers were the initial advocates of periodic manual bougienage of the upper esophageal segment, resulting in elongation of the pouch, followed by a subsequent primary anastomosis 5–8 weeks later [34]. Bougienage of the distal esophageal pouch in addition to the proximal pouch was first published by Lafer and Boley in 1966 [35]. Rehbein and Schweder used a temporary silver prosthesis to create a fistula between the two esophageal segments [36]. In 1972, Thomasson described an elongation of the upper esophageal pouch by mercury-filled bags, and Livaditis et al. introduced circular myotomy of the esophagus to enable a primary anastomosis [37, 38]. The use of silk sutures for esophageal auto-anastomosis by producing a mucosa-lined fistula was proposed by Shafer and David in 1974 [39]. Hendren and Hale reported their experience with electromagnetic stretching of the two esophageal segments in 1975 [40]. In 1980, Gough detailed the fashioning of an anterior full-thickness flap when opening the proximal blind-ending pouch, in this way allowing a wider gap to be bridged [41].
In 1981, Puri et al. published their experience in six newborns with pure esophageal atresia that spontaneous growth and hypertrophy of the two blind-ending esophageal ends occur at a rate faster than overall somatic growth in the absence of any form of mechanical stretching, traction or bouginage [42]. The maximal natural growth of the two esophageal segments occurs in the first 8–12 weeks of life [42]. The stimuli to such natural growth are the swallowing reflex and the reflux of gastric contents into the lower esophageal pouch [43]. Since then, Puri et al. recommended initial gastrostomy placement and continuous suction of the upper esophageal pouch, followed by delayed primary anastomosis as the ideal procedure for the management of newborns with LGEA [42, 43]. In 1994, Boyle et al. confirmed that even in cases of ultralong-gap esophageal atresia (i.e., more than 3.5 cm), a delayed primary anastomosis is feasible [44].
Initial preoperative management and subsequent gap assessment
Following initial stabilization, normal care and monitoring of the newborn with esophageal atresia are initiated. An 8 Fr or 10 Fr double-lumen Replogle tube should be inserted through the nostril into the upper esophageal pouch and kept under continuous suction to prevent aspiration of saliva and choking episodes. LGEA can be suspected based on a plain X-ray not showing any intra-abdominal air (i.e., Gross type A or B) (Fig. 1) or the fact that primary anastomosis is not achievable in cases with esophageal atresia Gross type C or D, due to a gap length of more than 2–3 cm or 3–4 vertebral bodies [45]. To establish early enteral feeding and ensure adequate nutritional support, a gastrostomy is created on the first or second day of life. One should also look for any coexisting anomalies that may potentially influence the further management (e.g., VACTERL association, CHARGE syndrome and major chromosomal aberrations). With pure LGEA, the patient is maintained supine in Trendelenburg position for efficient suction of the upper esophageal pouch and to allow reflux of gastric contents into the lower esophageal segment. In the presence of a distal tracheoesophageal fistula, the patient should be placed in reverse Trendelenburg position with the head up to minimize reflux of gastric contents into the trachea. The gastrostomy is kept closed between feedings to encourage gastroesophageal reflux and distension of the lower esophageal end. An important factor stimulating hypertrophy of the lower esophageal pouch is the reflux of gastric contents owing to gastroesophageal junction incompetence of newborns and young infants.
Various techniques have been described to monitor the elongation of the two esophageal segments and to assess the intermediate gap length, respectively. Injection of water-soluble contrast via the gastrostomy tube may be the simplest and oldest method to evaluate the lower esophageal pouch. Most authors favor radiological assessment of the interceding gap by insertion of metal bougies (e.g., Hegar dilators or urethral sounds) in the upper and lower esophageal segment [46, 47]. Alternatively, the anesthetist is asked to pass a radiopaque tipped catheter into the upper pouch, while the surgeon introduces a rigid metal bougie through the gastrostomy into the lower esophagus. The distance between the two ends can be quantified either by laying the patient on a ruler with radiopaque markings or by counting the number of vertebral bodies between the two segments (i.e., one vertebral body is equal to approximately 1 cm). It is vital not to apply too much pressure to the bougies while measuring the gap between the ends as this can result in errors in estimation of the distance between the two segments [48]. Caffarena et al. [49] first reported inserting an endoscope in both the upper and lower esophageal pouches for measurement of LGEA. Chan and Saing [50] combined flexible endoscopy and fluoroscopy in the assessment of the gap between the two esophageal pouches. Gross et al. [51] demonstrated how fiberoptic endoscopy allows measurement of the gap in esophageal atresia. Other researchers applied computer tomography scanning for the evaluation of neonates with esophageal atresia [52, 53]. The first measurement of the gap between the esophageal segments is made at the time of initial gastrostomy placement and is repeated at 3-week intervals (Fig. 2). Although some centers have allowed temporary discharge for several weeks on nasopharyngeal suction and gastrostomy feedings [7, 54], the majority of patients with LGEA remain in hospital until delayed primary anastomosis of the esophagus is performed [42, 43, 55, 56]. The parents should be carefully counseled throughout, including necessity and progress of regular gap assessment.
Delayed primary anastomosis
Puri et al. [42] have shown that the maximal spontaneous growth of the two esophageal segments occurs in most patients by 8–12 weeks of age, correlating with doubling of birth weight. By this age, the gap between the two esophageal pouches usually is less than 2 cm and the two ends can be approximated or even overlapped (Fig. 3) [43, 56, 57]. Therefore, it is recommended to perform a delayed primary anastomosis when the patient is about 3–4 months old [58]. Successful primary anastomosis with delays of up to 12 months [54] and initial gaps of up to 7 cm [59] or eight vertebral bodies [60] has been reported. On the other hand, if the gap reduces earlier, and it is felt that careful mobilization will enable the ends to be brought together, definitive repair can be attempted sooner.
A preliminary bronchoscopy should be carried out to exclude an upper pouch fistula entering the posterior wall of the trachea, which can be seen in about 20% of cases that presented without intra-abdominal air on initial X-ray [61]. The surgical approach for delayed primary anastomosis of the esophagus in LGEA is similar to that of esophageal atresia repair with tracheoesophageal fistula. In 1999, Lobe and Rothenberg performed the first thoracoscopic reconstruction of esophageal atresia [62]. Currently, the majority of pediatric surgeons still favor the open procedure [33]. In general, this is accomplished through a right posterolateral thoracotomy via the fourth intercostal space using an extrapleural approach. The advantage of the extrapleural approach is that a postoperative anastomotic leak does not contaminate the pleural cavity, requiring prolonged chest tube drainage. By the time of operation, the esophageal pouches appear thickened and hypertrophied [48]. Thus, the tissues have gained strength and are more able to sustain an anastomosis. Dissection and mobilization of the upper esophageal pouch can usually facilitate approximation of the two esophageal segments, enabling an end-to-end anastomosis without excessive tension. Prior to completion of the full-thickness esophagoesophagostomy, a transanastomotic nasogastric tube is inserted. Several investigators have reported using circular myotomy to obtain additional length for the upper pouch [42, 54,55,56, 59, 63,64,65,66,67,68]. However, this can lead to damage of the esophageal wall and potentially result in severe stricture, pseudo-diverticulum and extreme dysmotility. A chest drain is not routinely placed as it may increase the rate of anastomotic leakage [69]. Postoperatively, the patient is transferred back to the neonatal intensive care unit, receiving intravenous fluids and antibiotic prophylaxis. Nasopharyngeal suction is continued for the first few days after the procedure. The Replogle tube should be clearly marked to prevent it being accidently passed to the site of the anastomosis, causing damage. If the esophageal anastomosis has been completed under significant tension, the patient is kept electively paralyzed and mechanically ventilated for five postoperative days [70]. Transanastomotic nasogastric feeds can be started on the second or third day following delayed primary anastomosis, and when the infant is swallowing saliva, oral feeds may be commenced. A follow-up contrast study is not routinely performed, but if there is any doubt regarding the integrity of the anastomosis, oral feeds should be withheld and a water-soluble contrast study carried out after 7–10 days postoperatively (Fig. 4). If no leak is present, antibiotics are discontinued, and the patient is allowed to take feeds orally. Furthermore, regular chest physiotherapy is recommended to avoid respiratory infections.
Potential postoperative complications
In most studies, the survival rate for patients with LGEA after delayed primary anastomosis is reportedly greater than 90% [43, 49, 54, 59, 66,67,68, 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. Early complications after delayed primary anastomosis are leaks, which may occur in up to 30% of cases [42, 43, 54, 55, 57, 65,66,67,68, 72, 75, 78,79,80,81,82]. Fortunately, most anastomotic leaks are minor and will seal spontaneously with antibiotic therapy, nil by mouth and total parenteral nutrition without need for any surgical intervention. However, some researchers have reported major disruption and failure of conservative management with need for drainage or reoperation in up to 15% of their LGEA patients [66, 79]. Anastomotic strictures developed in some series in up to 60% of cases [43, 55, 65, 83]. The presence of a previous anastomotic leak has been found to be the most important risk factor for later stricture formation [48]. Most esophageal strictures respond to periodic dilatations, while only a minority of patients ultimately may require resection and reanastomosis [42, 43, 55, 56, 65, 71, 75, 78, 80, 84]. With meticulous handling of the esophageal ends, preservation of the blood supply and careful inclusion of the mucosa in each and every suture of the anastomosis, strictures can be kept to a minimum [70]. Persistent esophageal strictures are mainly secondary to gastroesophageal reflux [85]. Gastroesophageal reflux that is present following delayed primary anastomosis under tension normally requires a more aggressive approach to treatment. According to most authors [42, 49, 54,55,56,57, 59, 63, 65,66,67,68, 72, 73, 75, 77,78,79,80,81,82, 84, 86], up to 30% of their patients, treated by delayed primary anastomosis, require fundoplication in the first year after surgical repair of their LGEA due to either symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux or reflux-associated strictures. Severe esophagitis caused by gastroesophageal reflux occurs only rarely following delayed primary anastomosis and generally can be resolved by fundoplication [63, 78, 82].
Long-term results
The majority of patients with LGEA who have undergone delayed primary anastomosis are able to eat normally without dysphagia (Fig. 5). Thus, the reported incidence of swallowing difficulties is generally low [43, 64, 68, 80, 86]. LGEA patients who present with dysphagia are often found to have gastroesophageal reflux or reflux-associated strictures on subsequent contrast studies [87]. Recurrent aspiration pneumonia is very uncommon in patients with LGEA who had delayed primary anastomosis but is reported by some authors [57, 63, 64, 86]. Health-related quality of life in children who underwent delayed primary anastomosis seems to be significantly better when compared to their peers who had other types of esophageal reconstruction [88]. Failure to achieve a satisfactory delayed primary anastomosis of the esophagus with need for esophageal replacement is relatively rare and only necessary in very few patients with LGEA [54, 55, 66, 80]. Recently, Lee et al. have indicated that delayed primary anastomosis for LGEA repair has a better long-term outcome compared to esophageal replacement [89]. Most follow-up studies have shown that the majority of patients have normal growth and development curves after delayed primary anastomosis [56, 65, 81, 84]. However, the potential risk of Barrett’s metaplasia and other morbidities highlights the need for continued long-term follow-up in LGEA [56, 78].
Conclusion and future directions
Delayed primary anastomosis in patients with LGEA generally achieves a favorable postoperative outcome with good long-term functional results. However, the high incidence of gastroesophageal reflux and associated morbidities requires timely intervention to prevent ongoing feeding problems secondary to anastomotic strictures or esophagitis. Long-term follow-up is recommended due to the potential risk of Barrett’s metaplasia. The downside of waiting for the esophageal segments to grow and hypertrophy in LGEA are prolonged hospital stay and constant risk of developing aspiration pneumonia, which requires continuous skilled nursing supervision. It may also be argued that the initial long hospital stay is expensive. These factors must be balanced against reduced long-term morbidity in a child with LGEA that should have a normal life expectancy and against the disadvantages of esophageal replacement [45, 90, 91]. At the moment, there is still no “ideal” substitute for a child’s own esophagus. However, new methods of overcoming the need for esophageal replacement in LGEA are in progress with tissue engineering using acellular or cell-seeded scaffolds to produce a tubular graft that bridges the gap in the continuity of the esophagus [2, 92].
References
Billmyre KK, Hutson M, Klingensmith J (2015) One shall become two: separation of the esophagus and trachea from the common foregut tube. Dev Dyn 244:277–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.24219
Perin S, McCann CJ, Borrelli O, De Coppi P, Thapar N (2017) Update on foregut molecular embryology and role of regenerative medicine therapies. Front Pediatr 5:91. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00091
Raad S, David A, Que J, Faure C (2020) Genetic mouse models and induced pluripotent stem cells for studying tracheal-esophageal separation and esophageal development. Stem Cells Dev 29:953–966. https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2020.0075
Edwards NA, Shacham-Silverberg V, Weitz L, Kingma PS, Shen Y, Wells JM, Chung WK, Zorn AM (2021) Developmental basis of trachea-esophageal birth defects. Dev Biol 477:85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2021.05.015
Nassar N, Leoncini E, Amar E, Arteaga-Vázquez J, Bakker MK, Bower C, Canfield MA, Castilla EE, Cocchi G, Correa A, Csáky-Szunyogh M, Feldkamp ML, Khoshnood B, Landau D, Lelong N, López-Camelo JS, Lowry RB, McDonnell R, Merlob P, Métneki J, Morgan M, Mutchinick OM, Palmer MN, Rissmann A, Siffel C, Sìpek A, Szabova E, Tucker D, Mastroiacovo P (2012) Prevalence of esophageal atresia among 18 international birth defects surveillance programs. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 94:893–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23067
Pedersen RN, Calzolari E, Husby S, Garne E, EUROCAT Working group (2012) Oesophageal atresia: prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and associated anomalies in 23 European regions. Arch Dis Child 97:227–232. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300597
Manning PB (1994) Long-gap esophageal atresia. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 6:216–220
von Allmen D, Wijnen RM (2015) Bridging the gap in the repair of long-gap esophageal atresia: still questions on diagnostics and treatment. Eur J Pediatr Surg 25:312–317. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1562926
van der Zee DC, Bagolan P, Faure C, Gottrand F, Jennings R, Laberge JM, Martinez Ferro MH, Parmentier B, Sfeir R, Teague W (2017) Position paper of INoEA working group on long-gap esophageal atresia: for better care. Front Pediatr 5:63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00063
Koivusalo A, Suominen J, Rintala R, Pakarinen M (2018) Location of TEF at the carina as an indicator of long-gap C-type esophageal atresia. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy044
Baird R, Lal DR, Ricca RL, Diefenbach KA, Downard CD, Shelton J, Sømme S, Grabowski J, Oyetunji TA, Williams RF, Jancelewicz T, Dasgupta R, Arthur LG, Kawaguchi AL, Guner YS, Gosain A, Gates RL, Sola JE, Kelley-Quon LI, St Peter SD, Goldin A (2019) Management of long gap esophageal atresia: a systematic review and evidence-based guidelines from the APSA outcomes and evidence based practice committee. J Pediatr Surg 54:675–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.12.019
Dingemann C, Eaton S, Aksnes G, Bagolan P, Cross KM, De Coppi P, Fruithof J, Gamba P, Goldschmidt I, Gottrand F, Pirr S, Rasmussen L, Sfeir R, Slater G, Suominen J, Svensson JF, Thorup JM, Tytgat SHAJ, van der Zee DC, Wessel L, Widenmann-Grolig A, Wijnen R, Zetterquist W, Ure BM (2021) ERNICA Consensus conference on the management of patients with long-gap esophageal atresia: perioperative, surgical, and long-term management. Eur J Pediatr Surg 31:214–225. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713932
Bagolan P, Valfrè L, Morini F, Conforti A (2013) Long-gap esophageal atresia: traction-growth and anastomosis—before and beyond. Dis Esophagus 26:372–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12050
Conforti A, Morini F, Bagolan P (2014) Difficult esophageal atresia: trick and treat. Semin Pediatr Surg 23:261–269. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.09.006
Friedmacher F, Puri P (2012) Delayed primary anastomosis for management of long-gap esophageal atresia: a meta-analysis of complications and long-term outcome. Pediatr Surg Int 28:899–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-012-3142-2
Tullie L, Hall NJ, Burge DM, Howe DT, Drewett M, Wellesley D (2020) Prognostic value of prenatally detected small or absent fetal stomach with particular reference to oesophageal atresia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 105:341–342. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317959
Weissbach T, Kushnir A, Haber Kaptsenel E, Leibovitch L, Bilik R, Shinhar D, Karplus G, Achiron R, Kivilevitch Z, Barzilay E, Mazaki Tovi S, Weisz B, Kassif E (2022) Oesophageal atresia: sonographic signs may prenatally predict surgical complexity. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 107:206–210. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-321836
Ladd WE (1944) The surgical treatment of esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistulas. New Engl J Med 230:625–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM194405252302101
Nakayama DK (2020) The history of surgery for esophageal atresia. J Pediatr Surg 55:1414–1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.03.003
Haight C, Towsley HA (1943) Congenital atresia of esophagus with tracheoesophageal fistula: extrapleural ligation and end-to-end anastomosis of esophageal segments. Surg Gynecol Obstet 76:672–688
Haight C (1944) Congenital atresia of the esophagus with tracheoesophageal fistula: reconstruction of esophageal continuity by primary anastomosis. Ann Surg 120:623–652. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-194410000-00018
Cassina M, Ruol M, Pertile R, Midrio P, Piffer S, Vicenzi V, Saugo M, Stocco CF, Gamba P, Clementi M (2016) Prevalence, characteristics, and survival of children with esophageal atresia: a 32-year population-based study including 1,417,724 consecutive newborns. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 106:542–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23493
Donoso F, Kassa AM, Gustafson E, Meurling S, Lilja HE (2016) Outcome and management in infants with esophageal atresia—a single centre observational study. J Pediatr Surg 51:1421–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.03.010
Orford J, Cass DT, Glasson MJ (2004) Advances in the treatment of oesophageal atresia over three decades: the 1970s and the 1990s. Pediatr Surg Int 20:402–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-004-1163-1
Malakounides G, Lyon P, Cross K, Pierro A, De Coppi P, Drake D, Kiely E, Spitz L, Curry J (2016) Esophageal atresia: improved outcome in high-risk groups revisited. Eur J Pediatr Surg 26:227–231. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1551567
Goyal A, Jones MO, Couriel JM, Losty PD (2006) Oesophageal atresia and tracheo-oesophageal fistula. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 91:F381-384. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2005.086157
Chittmittrapap S, Spitz L, Kiely EM, Brereton RJ (1989) Oesophageal atresia and associated anomalies. Arch Dis Child 64:364–368. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.64.3.364
Myers NA (1992) Oesophageal atresia. Pediatr Surg Int 7:83–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183907
Ron O, De Coppi P, Pierro A (2009) The surgical approach to esophageal atresia repair and the management of long-gap atresia: results of a survey. Semin Pediatr Surg 18:44–49. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2008.10.009
Holland AJ, Ron O, Pierro A, Drake D, Curry JI, Kiely EM, Spitz L (2009) Surgical outcomes of esophageal atresia without fistula for 24 years at a single institution. J Pediatr Surg 44:1928–1932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.02.008
Zani A, Cobellis G, Wolinska J, Chiu PP, Pierro A (2016) Preservation of native esophagus in infants with pure esophageal atresia has good long-term outcomes despite significant postoperative morbidity. Pediatr Surg Int 32:113–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-015-3821-x
Myers NA (1974) Oesophageal atresia: the epitome of modern surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 54:277–287
Zani A, Eaton S, Hoellwarth ME, Puri P, Tovar J, Fasching G, Bagolan P, Lukac M, Wijnen R, Kuebler JF, Cecchetto G, Rintala R, Pierro A (2014) International survey on the management of esophageal atresia. Eur J Pediatr Surg 24:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1350058
Howard R, Myers NA (1965) Esophageal atresia: a technique for elongating the upper pouch. Surgery 58:725–727. https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:0039606065900711
Lafer DJ, Boley SJ (1966) Primary repair in esophageal atresia with elongation of the lower segment. J Pediatr Surg 1:585–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(66)80124-0
Rehbein F, Schweder N (1971) Reconstruction of the esophagus without colon transplantation in cases of atresia. J Pediatr Surg 6:746–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(71)90856-6
Thomasson BH (1972) Congenital esophageal atresia: mercury bag stretching of the upper pouch in a patient without tracheoesophageal fistula. Surgery 71:661–663
Livaditis A, Rådberg L, Odensjö G (1972) Esophageal end-to-end anastomosis. Reduction of anastomotic tension by circular myotomy. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 6:206–214. https://doi.org/10.3109/14017437209134801
Shafer AD, David TE (1974) Suture fistula as a means of connecting upper and lower segments in esophageal atresia. J Pediatr Surg 9:669–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(74)90104-3
Hendren WH, Hale JR (1975) Electromagnetic bougienage to lengthen esophageal segments in congenital esophageal atresia. N Engl J Med 293:428–432. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197508282930905
Gough MH (1980) Esophageal atresia–use of an anterior flap in the difficult anastomosis. J Pediatr Surg 15:310–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(80)80143-6
Puri P, Blake N, O’Donnell B, Guiney EJ (1981) Delayed primary anastomosis following spontaneous growth of esophageal segments in esophageal atresia. J Pediatr Surg 16:180–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(81)80347-8
Puri P, Ninan GK, Blake NS, Fitzgerald RJ, Guiney EJ, O’Donnell B (1992) Delayed primary anastomosis for esophageal atresia: 18 months’ to 11 years’ follow-up. J Pediatr Surg 27:1127–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(92)90573-p
Boyle EM Jr, Irwin ED, Foker JE (1994) Primary repair of ultra-long-gap esophageal atresia: results without a lengthening procedure. Ann Thorac Surg 57:576–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(94)90548-7
van Lennep M, Singendonk MMJ, Dall’Oglio L, Gottrand F, Krishnan U, Terheggen-Lagro SWJ, Omari TI, Benninga MA, van Wijk MP (2019) Oesophageal atresia. Nat Rev Dis Primers 5:26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0077-0
Rossi C, Dòmini M, Aquino A, Persico A, Lelli Chiesa P (1998) A simple and safe method to visualize the inferior pouch in esophageal atresia without fistula. Pediatr Surg Int 13:535–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003830050395
Beasley SW, Myers NA, Auldist AW (1999) Visualisation of the inferior pouch in oesophageal atresia without fistula. Pediatr Surg Int 15:451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003830050633
Puri P, Khurana S (1998) Delayed primary esophageal anastomosis for pure esophageal atresia. Semin Pediatr Surg 7:126–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1055-8586(98)70027-7
Caffarena PE, Mattioli G, Bisio G, Martucciello G, Ivani G, Jasonni V (1994) Long-gap oesophageal atresia: a combined endoscopic and radiologic evaluation. Eur J Pediatr Surg 4:67–69. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1066070
Chan KL, Saing H (1995) Combined flexible endoscopy and fluoroscopy in the assessment of the gap between the two esophageal pouches in esophageal atresia without fistula. J Pediatr Surg 30:668–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(95)90686-x
Gross ER, Reichstein A, Gander JW, Stolar CJ, Coran AG, Cowles RA (2010) The role of fiberoptic endoscopy in the evaluation and management of long gap isolated esophageal atresia. Pediatr Surg Int 26(12):1223–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-010-2731-1
Tam PK, Chan FL, Saing H (1987) Diagnosis and evaluation of esophageal atresia by direct sagittal CT. Pediatr Radiol 17(1):68–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02386600
Ratan SK, Varshney A, Mullick S, Saxena NC, Kakkar S, Sodhi PK (2004) Evaluation of neonates with esophageal atresia using chest CT scan. Pediatr Surg Int 20:757–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-004-1293-5
Aziz D, Schiller D, Gerstle JT, Ein SH, Langer JC (2003) Can ‘long-gap’ esophageal atresia be safely managed at home while awaiting anastomosis? J Pediatr Surg 38:705–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/jpsu.2003.50188
Ein SH, Shandling B, Heiss K (1993) Pure esophageal atresia: outlook in the 1990s. J Pediatr Surg 28:1147–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(93)90151-a
Sri Paran T, Decaluwe D, Corbally M, Puri P (2007) Long-term results of delayed primary anastomosis for pure oesophageal atresia: a 27-year follow up. Pediatr Surg Int 23:647–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-007-1925-7
Rosinha MC, Silva JC, Monteiro J, Souto A, Monteiro B (1997) Delayed primary anastomosis for esophageal atresia without fistula. 10 years’ experience. Acta Med Port 10:173–177
Puri P, Friedmacher F (2017) Delayed primary anastomosis in the management of long-gap esophageal atresia. In: Till H, Thomson M, Foker J, Holcomb G III, Khan K (eds) Esophageal and gastric disorders in infancy and childhood. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11202-7_21
Yeh SH, Ni YH, Hsu WM, Chen HL, Wu JF, Chang MH (2010) Use of retrograde esophagoscopy in delayed primary esophageal anastomosis for isolated esophageal atresia. Eur J Pediatr Surg 20:40–44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1234117
Howell CG, Davis JB Jr, Parrish RA (1987) Primary repair of esophageal atresia: how long a gap? J Pediatr Surg 22:42–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(87)80012-x
Friedmacher F, Kroneis B, Huber-Zeyringer A, Schober P, Till H, Sauer H, Höllwarth ME (2017) Postoperative complications and functional outcome after esophageal atresia repair: results from longitudinal single-center follow-up. J Gastrointest Surg 21:927–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3423-0
Lobe TE, Rothenberg S, Waldschmidt J, Stroedter L (1999) Thoracoscopic repair of esophageal atresia in an infant: a surgical first. Pediatr Endosurg Innov Tech 3:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1089/pei.1999.3.141
Lindahl H, Rintala R, Louhimo I (1987) Oesophageal anastomosis without bougienage in isolated atresia—do the segments really grow while waiting? Z Kinderchir 42:221–223. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1075588
Cavallaro S, Pineschi A, Freni G, Cortese MG, Bardini T (1992) Feeding troubles following delayed primary repair of esophageal atresia. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2:73–77. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1063406
de la Hunt MN, Fleet MS, Wagget J (1994) Delayed primary anastomosis for wide-defect esophageal atresia: a 17-year experience. Pediatr Surg Int 9:21–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176100
Rescorla FJ, West KW, Scherer LR 3rd, Grosfeld JL (1994) The complex nature of type a (long-gap) esophageal atresia. Surgery 116:658–664
Healey PJ, Sawin RS, Hall DG, Schaller RT, Tapper D (1998) Delayed primary repair of esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula: is it worth the wait? Arch Surg 133:552–556. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.5.552
Buonuomo V, Nanni L, Canali R, Pintus C (2007) Esophageal atresia. Personal experience and review of the literature. Ann Ital Chir 78:385–388
Beasley SW (2019) Oesophageal atresia and tracheo-oesophageal fistula. Surg (Oxford) 37:623–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpsur.2019.09.001
Spitz L (2007) Oesophageal atresia. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-2-24
Hicks LM, Mansfield PB (1981) Esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula. Review of thirteen years’ experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 81:358–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(19)37598-1
Bensoussan AL, Letourneau JN, Blanchard H (1983) Cure of esophageal atresia types 1 and 2. Deferred primary anastomosis. Apropos of 6 cases. Chir Pediatr 24:109–112
Santos AD, Thompson TR, Johnson DE, Foker JE (1983) Correction of esophageal atresia with distal tracheoesophageal fistula. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 85:229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(19)38878-6
Ito T, Sugito T, Nagaya M (1984) Delayed primary anastomosis in poor-risk patients with esophageal atresia associated with tracheoesophageal fistula. J Pediatr Surg 19:243–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(84)80178-5
Hagberg S, Rubenson A, Sillén U, Werkmäster K (1986) Management of long-gap esophagus: experience with end-to-end anastomosis under maximal tension. Prog Pediatr Surg 19:88–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70777-3_8
Wise WE Jr, Caniano DA, Harmel RP Jr (1987) Tracheoesophageal anomalies in Waterston C neonates: a 30-year perspective. J Pediatr Surg 22:526–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(87)80213-0
Golonka NR, Hayashi AH (2008) Early “sham” feeding of neonates promotes oral feeding after delayed primary repair of major congenital esophageal anomalies. Am J Surg 195:659–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.02.001
Burjonrappa S, Thiboutot E, Castilloux J, St-Vil D (2010) Type A esophageal atresia: a critical review of management strategies at a single center. J Pediatr Surg 45:865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.02.004
Hight DW, McGowan G, Smith J, Kent G, Alexander F (1987) Atresia of the esophagus. New trends in the management of high-risk neonates. Arch Surg 122:421–423. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1987.01400160047005
Myers NA, Beasley SW, Auldist AW, Kent M, Wright V, Chetcuti P (1987) Oesophageal atresia without fistula—anastomosis or replacement? Pediatr Surg Int 2:216–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00179574
Gurskas P, Ivanauskas A (2004) Delayed primary anastomosis for esophageal atresia. Medicina (Kaunas) 40:166–169
Bagolan P, Bd IB, De Angelis P, di Abriola GF, Laviani R, Trucchi A, Orzalesi M, Dall’Oglio L (2004) Long gap esophageal atresia and esophageal replacement: moving toward a separation? J Pediatr Surg 39:1084–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.03.048
Jensen AR, McDuffie LA, Groh EM, Rescorla FJ (2020) Outcomes for correction of long-gap esophageal atresia: a 22-year experience. J Surg Res 251:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.01.020
Ruiz de Temiño M, Esteban JA, Elías J, González N, Gracia J, Romeo M, Escartín R, Burgués P, Sainz A, Pueyo C (2006) Esophageal atresia type I. Is impossible possible? Cir Pediatr 19:39–45
Pieretti R, Shandling B, Stephens CA (1974) Resistant esophageal stenosis associated with reflux after repair of esophageal atresia: a therapeutic approach. J Pediatr Surg 9:355–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(74)80292-7
Séguier-Lipszyc E, Bonnard A, Aizenfisz S, Enezian G, Maintenant J, Aigrain Y, de Lagausie P (2005) The management of long gap esophageal atresia. J Pediatr Surg 40:1542–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.06.007
Stadil T, Koivusalo A, Svensson JF, Jönsson L, Lilja HE, Thorup JM, Sæter T, Stenström P, Qvist N (2019) Surgical treatment and major complications within the first year of life in newborns with long-gap esophageal atresia gross type A and B—a systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 54:2242–2249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.06.017
Dingemann C, Meyer A, Kircher G, Boemers TM, Vaske B, Till H, Ure BM (2014) Long-term health-related quality of life after complex and/or complicated esophageal atresia in adults and children registered in a German patient support group. J Pediatr Surg 49:631–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.11.068
Lee HQ, Hawley A, Doak J, Nightingale MG, Hutson JM (2014) Long-gap oesophageal atresia: comparison of delayed primary anastomosis and oesophageal replacement with gastric tube. J Pediatr Surg 49:1762–1766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.09.017
Soccorso G, Parikh DH (2016) Esophageal replacement in children: challenges and long-term outcomes. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 21:98–105. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-9261.182580
Liu J, Yang Y, Zheng C, Dong R, Zheng S (2017) Surgical outcomes of different approaches to esophageal replacement in long-gap esophageal atresia: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e6942. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006942
Maghsoudlou P, Eaton S, De Coppi P (2014) Tissue engineering of the esophagus. Semin Pediatr Surg 23:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.04.003
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
F.F. wrote the manuscript text and prepared figures 1-5. The original X-ray studies were kindly provided by Professor Prem Puri.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
It is a great honor and privilege to be invited to participate in this special issue of Pediatric Surgery International recognizing the outstanding contributions of Professor Prem Puri to the journal during the past 20 years. I am greatly appreciative of the incredible impact his mentorship, guidance and support have had on my career as a pediatric surgeon. I hope that his substantial achievements and unwavering efforts in our field are recognized by this well-deserved tribute.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Friedmacher, F. Delayed primary anastomosis for repair of long-gap esophageal atresia: technique revisited. Pediatr Surg Int 39, 40 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05317-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05317-6