[What can we do when a esophagocoloplasty fails?].

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications of esophageal replacement are potentially severe, and they can even make impossible the digestive continuity. However, several surgical options have been used for such situations. The aim of the study is to assess the early and late results in patients who have been managed or referred to our department for this problem.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 8 patients operated between 1975 and 2005, four of them were referred from other hospitals. The ranging in age was from 4 months and 23 years at the moment of the first colonic replacement, and who required a second plasty because of intra or postoperative complications. The esophagocoloplasty was retrosternal in 6 cases and transhiatal in 2, with a left colon graft in 6, ileocolonic in I and right colon in the last one. The initial diagnosis was traqueoesophageal fistula in 6 (type III in 3, type I in 2 and IV in 1), caustic injury in 1 and herpetic esophagitis in 1. Complications requiring reoperation were stricture of the cervical esophagococolic anastomosis because of postoperative dehiscence (n=4), perioperative deficient graft vascularisation (n=2), graft necrosis (n= 1) and symptomatic gastric-colic reflux (n=l).

RESULTS: The deficient graft irrigation was detected and managed during the surgical procedure in 2 cases, left colonic graft was remplaced by a gastric tube and the right colon, respectively, with excellent results. Repeated endoscopic dilatations (n=4) as well as surgical revision with resection and reanastomosis of the stenotic segment (n=2), did not suffice in children with severe strictures (100%). A second plasty was tried in 2 patients: a failed microsurgical sigmoid graft in one of them, and a presternal esophagocoloplasty with a left colonic graft in the other one. It was impossible to perform a new plasty in two chidren, because of the severe mediastinal fibrosis. One patient was referred with severe gastro-colic reflux and the cologastric anastomosis and the gastrostomy were refashioned. Another patient with graft necrosis required total resection of the coloplasty and a new esophagostomy and gastrostomy. 50% of the patients recovered digestive continuity, and nowadays three of them eat normally. The fourth one died after several years because of an Guillain Barré syndrome. Four patients are still waiting for future attempts of esophageal substitution.

CONCLUSIONS: There are surgical options to reestablish the digestive continuity whenever the initial esophageal replacement fails. Severe postoperative strictures do not dissapear with endoscopic dilatations or stenotic resection and reanastomosis, but they usually require a new graft in another less injured place. Poor vascularisation of the graft can be prevented, giving the best solution for each patient, and at minimal suspicion of ischemia, consider another plasty or access during the operation.