DOZ047.14: Endoscopic incisional therapy and other novel strategies for treatment of congenital esophageal stenosis

Abstract

Abstract Summary Management of congenital esophageal stenosis (CES) often involves dilation with reversion to myotomy or stricture resection in refractory cases.1,2 However, surgery often fails to produce durable response, with anastomotic strictures requiring ongoing dilation and stenotic symptoms plaguing more than half of the patients in published series.3 Methods In this study, the medical records of all patients with CES treated by our tertiary care center who had at least one endoscopy between July 2007 and October 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Success was defined as full when the diet included all age-appropriate textures with dysphagia once per month or less, or partial when the diet included most textures with dysphagia at most 1–2 times per week. Results Thirty patients with CES had at least one endoscopic intervention. All patients had balloon dilation(s) and at least one other therapy such as endoscopic incisional therapy (EIT), steroid injection, or stenting. Esophageal vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) was used for treatment or prevention of esophageal leak. Of patients who had EIT at their CES (N = 18), 14 (77.8%) achieved full (N = 13) or partial (N = 1) success with endoscopic therapy alone; 3 (16.7%) required surgery to achieve full (N = 3) success; 1 nonsurgical patient does not yet eat by mouth due to oral aversion. Of patients who did not undergo EIT at their CES (N = 12), 5 (41.7%) achieved full success with endoscopic therapy alone; 7 (58.3%) required surgery (2 full success, 4 partial success, and 1 does not eat by mouth due to airway comorbidities). The rate of surgical intervention was significantly lower in the group that received EIT (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.045). Twenty-five endoscopies (8.9%) were associated with complications, including esophageal leak (N = 21) or stent migration (N = 4). Of endoscopies with a complication, 16 (64%) involved EIT. Odds of complications after therapeutic endoscopies involving EIT were significantly higher than those without EIT (odds ratio 6.15; 95% CI (2.44, 15.52); P < 0.001). The rates of esophageal leak significantly decreased over time as the use of EVAC increased (P = 0.003). Conclusion EIT shows promise as an alternative to surgery in CES; however, further study is needed. Complementary endoscopic techniques such as injection, stenting, and EIT broaden the toolbox of the treating physician and may allow for avoidance of surgery in CES.