In a Setting of Esophageal Replacement, Total Gastric Pull-Up has Fewer Complications than Partial Gastric Pull-Up.

AIM: The main indications for an esophageal replacement (ER) are unresolved complex esophageal atresia (EA) and caustic strictures (CS). The use of different organs for replacement has been described. When the stomach is chosen, there are two ways to do a gastric pull-up: a partial (PGP) or a total pull-up (TGP). Few studies have been published comparing the different techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent ER by PGP or by TGT. METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent gastric pull-up for ER in the last 18 years at the National Pediatric Hospital Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan were reviewed. The study is comparative, retro-prospective and longitudinal. Patients were divided in two groups according to the ER technique (PGP or TGP). We compared the following outcomes: duration of the operation, days of hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU), days of total hospitalization, time to initiation of oral feedings and rate of anastomosis dehiscence, incidence of anastomotic stenosis, need for re-operations, incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), incidence of tracheo-esophageal fistulas (TEF), incidence of dumping syndrome, incidence of gastric necrosis and mortality. RESULTS: There were 92 patients included in the study: 70 in the PGP group (76%) and 26 in the TGP group (24%). The two groups were demographically equivalent. Patients in the TGP group had a statistically significant lower incidence of anastomotic dehiscence (22,7% versus 54,3%; p = 0.01) and dumping syndrome (13,6% versus 37,1%; p = 0.038). Patients in the TGP had lower incidence of anastomotic stenosis, although the difference was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of duration of the operation, postoperative days in the ICU, time to oral feedings, GERD, TEF or overall hospital stay. There were no cases of gastric necrosis. There were 3 deaths in the PGP group and one in the TGP group. CONCLUSIONS: We observed benefits in the TGP group versus the PGP approach in terms of anastomotic dehiscence and dumping syndrome, as well as a trend toward a lower incidence of anastomotic stenosis. Based on this experience, we recommend the TGP approach for patients who need an esophageal replacement by a gastric pull-up. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: According to the Journal of Pediatric Surgery this research corresponds to type of study level III for retrospective comparative study.

Biological versus synthetic patch for the repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: 8-year experience at a tertiary center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare outcome between small intestinal submucosal (SIS) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patches in patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) with large muscular defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent CDH repair from January 2011 to June 2019, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Data were collected regarding length of stay (LOS), mortality and recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analyses was used. RESULTS: In the study period, 195 patients with CDH were admitted, 176 underwent surgical repair and 19 died before surgery. Sixty-two (35%) required a patch. Over the last 5 years, our institution transitioned from the use of all SIS to all PTFE. SIS was used in 18 cases and PTFE in 25. Overall survival rate was 89% (174/195). There was no significant difference regarding LOS and mortality. Nine patients (50%) of SIS and 1 (4%) of PTFE repairs recurred (P < 0.01; log-rank test P <  0.01), with a time course of recurrence of 18 (SD = 13) and 8 months, respectively. Median follow-up was 60 months (SD: 23) for the SIS group and 26 (SD: 10) for the PTFE group. CONCLUSION: A significant lower recurrence was found using PTFE patches instead of SIS for the repair of large CDH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. Retrospective comparative study.