Evaluation of an antireflux procedure for colonic interposition in pediatric esophageal replacements.

Background: In 1989, we introduced a 1-stage procedure with orthotopic colonic transplants for esophageal stenosis. A pitfall of this procedure is frequent reflux and/or stasis in the transplants from the cologastric anastomosis. Since 1993, we have used a new antireflux wrap (ARW) using an anterior wrap technique similar to the Dor procedure but fixed to the right crus of the diaphragm.Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate ARWs.Method: From 1993 to 2008, the records of 67 patients with an ARW were compared with 27 without ARW (either operated on before 1993 or ARW was not appropriate) after colonic transplant for caustic esophageal stenosis. Both groups otherwise underwent the same surgical procedure. Postoperative esophagograms done on postoperative day 10 were reviewed for the presence of gastrocolonic reflux and stasis in the transplant.Results: The reflux rate on the initial esophagogram was reduced from 48.1% to 7.5% using ARW. The incidence of reflux on later esophagograms was 40.0% with no ARW and 21.4% with ARW. The 25% long-term rate of stasis in the colonic transplant was not increased with ARW.Conclusions: A loose ARW in patients with colonic esophageal replacements reduces gastrocolic reflux without increasing the rate of stasis. In the long term, children adapt better to stasis than to reflux and are thus protected from occult inflammation.

A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Anastomosis or Hartmann's Procedure for Perforated Left Colonic Diverticulitis With Purulent or Fecal Peritonitis.

OBJECTIVES: : To evaluate the outcome after Hartmann's procedure (HP) versus primary anastomosis (PA) with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: : The surgical management of left-sided colonic perforation with purulent or fecal peritonitis remains controversial. PA with ileostomy seems to be superior to HP; however, results in the literature are affected by a significant selection bias. No randomized clinical trial has yet compared the 2 procedures. METHODS: : Sixty-two patients with acute left-sided colonic perforation (Hinchey III and IV) from 4 centers were randomized to HP (n = 30) and to PA (with diverting ileostomy, n = 32), with a planned stoma reversal operation after 3 months in both groups. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the overall complication rate. The study was discontinued following an interim analysis that found significant differences of relevant secondary end points as well as a decreasing accrual rate (NCT01233713). RESULTS: : Patient demographics were equally distributed in both groups (Hinchey III: 76% vs 75% and Hinchey IV: 24% vs 25%, for HP vs PA, respectively). The overall complication rate for both resection and stoma reversal operations was comparable (80% vs 84%, P = 0.813). Although the outcome after the initial colon resection did not show any significant differences (mortality 13% vs 9% and morbidity 67% vs 75% in HP vs PA), the stoma reversal rate after PA with diverting ileostomy was higher (90% vs 57%, P = 0.005) and serious complications (Grades IIIb-IV: 0% vs 20%, P = 0.046), operating time (73 minutes vs 183 minutes, P < 0.001), hospital stay (6 days vs 9 days, P = 0.016), and lower in-hospital costs (US $16,717 vs US $24,014) were significantly reduced in the PA group. CONCLUSIONS: : This is the first randomized clinical trial favoring PA with diverting ileostomy over HP in patients with perforated diverticulitis.