Towards the perfect ARM center: the European Union's criteria for centers of expertise and their implementation in the member states. A report from the ARM-Net.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric surgeons and patient organisations agree that fewer centers for anorectal malformations with larger patient numbers are essential to reach better treatment. The European Union transacts a political process which aims to realize such centers of expertise for a multitude of rare diseases. All the centers on a specific rare disease should constitute an ERN on that disease. ARM-Net members in different countries report on first experiences with the implementation of national directives, identifying opportunities and risks of this process. METHODS: Relevant details from the official European legislation were analyzed. A survey among the pediatric surgeons of the multidisciplinary ARM-Net consortium about national implementation was conducted. RESULTS: European legislation calls for multidisciplinary centers treating children with rare diseases, and proposes a multitude of quality criteria. The member states are called to allocate sufficient funding and to execute robust governance and oversight, applying clear methods for evaluation. Participation of the patient organisations is mandatory. The national implementations all over Europe differ a lot in respect of extent and timeframe. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing Centers of Expertise and a ERN for anorectal malformations offers great opportunities for patient care and research. Pediatric surgeons should be actively engaged in this process.

Long gap esophageal atresia and esophageal replacement: moving toward a separation?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Treatment of long gap esophageal atresia (EA) is still a major challenge. Gastric transposition and colon interposition are the 2 most popular choices for esophageal replacement, but there is general agreement that the child's own esophagus is the best. The aim of the study was to critically evaluate the feasibility and outcome of primary repair of long gap EA with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) by direct esophago-esophageal anastomosis as the only technique. METHODS: Seventy-one neonates with EA+/-TEF were considered. Nineteen cases were classified as long gap (> or =3 cm). All infants underwent either primary or shortly delayed repair. In the latter group, a gastrostomy was performed along with an x-ray evaluation of the gap a few days before surgery (mean age, 46.4 days). To avoid disruptive anastomotic force, all infants were kept paralyzed and mechanically ventilated for an additional 6 days after esophageal anastomosis. Before starting feeding, postoperative esophagogram was done on day 7. Endoscopy was done routinely, starting 1 month after surgery; pH monitoring was conventionally performed at 1 year of age or even earlier, should gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) be suspected. Follow-up ranged from 11 months to 7 years. RESULTS: In all 19 long gap EA infants an esophago-esophageal anastomosis was performed. Six of them (31%) required an anterior esophageal flap to bridge residual gap. Complications included minor anastomotic leak in 2 cases and anastomotic stricture (<5mm) in 12 (80%) cases, which were treated with an average of 5 dilatations (1 of which with resection of the stricture). GERD occurred in 8 cases (53.3%), of which, 3 required fundoplication. None of the patients had esophageal swallowing difficulties or persistent dysphagia. Two children experienced food aversion. Mean hospital stay was 66.2 (22 to 230) days. There were 4 deaths (very low birth weight, 1; associated anomalies, 1; and late sepsis, 2). CONCLUSIONS: Considering heat gap determination remains imprecise, it seems possible to conclude that in a well-established tertiary care level referral center: (1) long gap EA could be treated successfully with primary repair and anastomosis; (2) strictures and GER represent the most frequent postoperative problem, but additional procedures required seem "acceptable" to maintain the patient's own esophagus and avoid replacement; (3) esophageal substitution in long gap EA should be reserved for cases in which a previous attempt of esophageal reconstruction failed.