Evidence Hub

Refractory esophageal anastomotic stricture after esophageal atresia surgery improved with retrograde balloon dilatation through gastrostomy followed by laparoscopic fundoplication: a case report

Yoichiro Nakagawa, H. Uchida, Akinari Hinoki, Chiyoe Shirota, W. Sumida, Satoshi Makita, K. Yokota, H. Amano et al.

Surgery Case Reports, 2023

4 citations

Abstract

Background An esophageal anastomotic stricture (EAS) after an esophageal atresia surgery occurs in approximately 4–60% of the cases, and its first-line therapy includes balloon dilatation. Oral balloon dilatation cannot be performed in some EAS cases; conversely, even if dilatation is possible, these strictures recur in some cases, necessitating a surgical procedure for repairing the stenosis. However, these procedures are invasive and have short- and long-term complications. If an EAS recurs repeatedly after multiple balloon dilations, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may be the underlying cause. A fundoplication procedure may be effective for treating a refractory EAS, as in the present case. Case presentation A neonatal patient with type D esophageal atresia underwent thoracoscopic esophago-esophageal anastomosis at the age of 1 day, and her postoperative course was uneventful. Thereafter, the patient underwent gastrostomy for poor oral intake at the age of 3 months. After gastrostomy, the patient presented with a complete obstructive EAS. Balloon dilatation via the oral route was attempted; however, a guidewire could not be inserted into the EAS site. Hence, retrograde balloon dilatation via gastrostomy was performed successfully. However, the EAS recurred easily thereafter, and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery was performed to prevent GERD. The anti-reflux surgery cured the otherwise refractory EAS and prevented its recurrence. Conclusions Retrograde balloon…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free