↓ Skip to main content

Anastomotic Strictures after Esophageal Atresia Repair: Incidence, Investigations, and Management, Including Treatment of Refractory and Recurrent Strictures

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anastomotic Strictures after Esophageal Atresia Repair: Incidence, Investigations, and Management, Including Treatment of Refractory and Recurrent Strictures
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renato Tambucci, Giulia Angelino, Paola De Angelis, Filippo Torroni, Tamara Caldaro, Valerio Balassone, Anna Chiara Contini, Erminia Romeo, Francesca Rea, Simona Faraci, Giovanni Federici di Abriola, Luigi Dall’Oglio

Abstract

Improved surgical techniques, as well as preoperative and postoperative care, have dramatically changed survival of children with esophageal atresia (EA) over the last decades. Nowadays, we are increasingly seeing EA patients experiencing significant short- and long-term gastrointestinal morbidities. Anastomotic stricture (AS) is the most common complication following operative repair. An esophageal stricture is defined as an intrinsic luminal narrowing in a clinically symptomatic patient, but no symptoms are sensitive or specific enough to diagnose an AS. This review aims to provide a comprehensive view of AS in EA children. Given the lack of evidence-based data, we critically analyzed significant studies on children and adults, including comments on benign strictures with other etiologies. Despite there is no consensus about the goal of the luminal diameter based on the patient's age, esophageal contrast study, and/or endoscopy are recommended to assess the degree of the narrowing. A high variability in incidence of ASs is reported in literature, depending on different definitions of AS and on a great number of pre-, intra-, and postoperative risk factor influencing the anastomosis outcome. The presence of a long gap between the two esophageal ends, with consequent anastomotic tension, is determinant for stricture formation and its response to treatment. The cornerstone of treatment is endoscopic dilation, whose primary aims are to achieve symptom relief, allow age-appropriate capacity for oral feeding, and reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration. No clear advantage of either balloon or bougie dilator has been demonstrated; therefore, the choice is based on operator experience and comfort with the equipment. Retrospective evidences suggest that selective dilatations (performed only in symptomatic patients) results in significantly less number of dilatation sessions than routine dilations (performed to prevent symptoms) with equal long-term outcomes. The response to dilation treatment is variable, and some patients may experience recurrent and refractory ASs. Adjunctive treatments have been used, including local injection of steroids, topical application of mitomycin C, and esophageal stenting, but long-term studies are needed to prove their efficacy and safety. Stricture resection or esophageal replacement with an interposition graft remains options for AS refractory to conservative treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 12 13%
Other 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 36 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,552,700
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,392
of 6,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,564
of 314,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#57
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.