Long-term outcome of patients with epiphrenic diverticula: A retrospective single-center analysis over 20 years.

BACKGROUND: Epiphrenic diverticula are extremely rare. Evidence-based treatment recommendations are scarce. The primary study outcome was to examine whether surgical treatment in patients with epiphrenic diverticula leads to improved quality of life by outweighing the perioperative risks compared with conservative treatment. METHODS: All patients with an epiphrenic diverticula at our institution between 2001 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and followed-up using a specific questionnaire, including the Eating Assessment Tool, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: Of 51 patients with epiphrenic diverticula, 28 had surgery and 23 had conservative treatment. The most common symptom at presentation was dysphagia. Although 16 patients underwent open surgery, 12 had minimally invasive procedures. A prophylactic stent was applied intraoperatively in 6 patients. The morbidity rate in surgically treated patients was 50% (14/28), with a leakage in 43% (12/28; 33% for prophylactic stenting). Mortality was nil. At a median follow-up of 139 months, patients with surgery had better outcomes than those without (ie, less dysphagia [6/12 vs 11/12; P = .025]), a less likely pathologic Eating Assessment Tool score (4/12 vs 9/12; P = .041), and a nonsignificant better Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score (122 vs 112; P = .929). The rate of recurrence/progression of symptoms was significantly higher for conservatively treated patients (11/18 vs 6/27 for any surgery; P = .008), as well as for patients with minimally invasive procedure (5/12 vs 1/15 for open surgery; P = .030). CONCLUSION: Despite the high perioperative morbidity, surgical treatment of epiphrenic diverticula leads to an improved long-term quality of life and lower recurrence rates than conservative treatment.

Through Their Words: Sources of Bother for Hospitalized Children and Adolescents With Cancer.

An increased intensity of inpatient treatment, hospital-based routines, and separation from the familiar home environment may collectively increase the burden of the pediatric cancer experience. This study explored children and adolescents' perceived sources of bother related to hospitalization using two questions: (1) What bothered you the most about the hospital or hospital environment? and (2) What do you think could improve the hospital or hospital environment? Fifty children and adolescents (mean age 12.6 years) responded to these questions during each shift of a 3-day/3-night data collection period. Responses were analyzed using content analysis and chi-square analyses. Themes related to sources of bother included (1) "nothing/don't know," (2) "treatment and its consequences," (3) "isolation and loneliness," (4) "imposed bother," (5) "negative environment," and (6) "staff behaviors." Themes related to improving the hospital environment included (1) "nothing/don't know," (2) "normalizing activities," (3) "quality of the hospital environment," (4) "decrease burden of cancer and its treatment," and (5) "patient care issues." Participants' responses to these questions provide a foundation for actionable change to alleviate the burden associated with hospitalization.