Discussion
Corrosive injuries of the stomach and esophagus are not infrequent causes of hospitalization in countries like India [1, 2, 9]. In India, hydrochloric acid is readily available over the counter as a cheap toilet cleaner and is the most common corrosive ingested by lower socioeconomic groups. The next most frequent corrosive agent implicated is gold solvent, which is a 3:1 mixture of concentrated hydrochloric and nitric acid. This preparation is not regulated and is freely available. Alkalis are the cause only in a minority of people, who have access to caustic soda in an industrial or laboratory setting, or as a more expensive toilet cleaner [10]. This is in contrast to the West, where alkali ingestion is more frequent than acid ingestion [11, 12]. Lack of appropriate regulation in the packaging, labelling, and child-proofing of these potentially hazardous substances makes corrosive poisoning a more common problem encountered in this part of the world.
Patients with chronic gastric injuries after corrosive ingestion usually present with features of gastric outlet obstruction or early satiety. But the overbearing manifestation of a concomitant esophageal stricture may mask an underlying gastric injury. Physicians must be diligent in ruling out a concomitant gastric injury in any patient with corrosive ingestion, as it has a bearing on the management of the esophageal stricture. This is discussed later. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy when possible and a barium swallow are good means of evaluating the extent and nature of the gastric injury.
It is not uncommon to encounter patients with absolute dysphagia following corrosive injury. In these patients, it becomes impossible to perform an endoscopy or even a water-soluble contrast study to assess the extent of gastric injury. In such cases we have found that a simple plain abdominal radiograph taken after overnight fasting reveals a gastric fluid level whenever there is a gastric outlet obstruction [13]. This is a much cheaper option than a computed tomography (CT) scan. There are also reports on the use of a Meckel’s scan to assess the severity of the gastric injury [14].
The ideal time for surgical intervention for a chronic corrosive gastric injury is debatable [15]. Hwang et al. proposed early definitive operation to manage these injuries [16]. Patients with chronic corrosive injuries are generally poor candidates for prolonged operations because they suffer severe nutritional deficiency. It is better to postpone surgery in such patients and resort to jejunostomy feeds to improve the general fitness status. This may take up to several months. This period also enables the mucosal lesions to heal, so that surgical anastomosis can be carried out with greater safety. Even at the end of this delay, a subset of the population still will not reach optimal levels of fitness. Therefore they can endure only less demanding operations, such as a gastric bypass, as opposed to resection.
The requirement for gastric resection as prophylaxis against future malignancy has been overstated in the literature. There have been reports of malignancy developing in a scarred esophagus or stomach after corrosive ingestion, but, in our experience this association has been found to be tenuous [17–19]. In the over 500 corrosive injuries seen over a 30-year period, there was only one solitary instance of cricopharyngeal carcinoma following esophageal burns from caustic ingestion and one case of perigastroenterostomy carcinoma 18 years after the ingestion of acid. In the latter case, it is not clear whether the carcinoma was corrosive induced or secondary to chronic bile reflux through the gastrojejunostomy stoma (stump carcinoma or postgastric surgery carcinoma).
The debate over the use of steroids in corrosive burns to prevent stricture formation has been put to rest with recent meta-analyses [20, 21]. The investigators found no benefit with the use of systemic corticosteroids in corrosive ingestion and proscribe their routine use in the prevention of stricture formation. There is, however, an isolated report of the use of intralesional steroids in corrosive pyloric strictures [22].
Once the patient has a stable pyloric or antral stricture, the preferred operation depends on several factors: (1) the general condition of the patient, (2) the need for a concomitant esophageal reconstruction, and (3) the type of chronic gastric injury.
In type I gastric injury, a limited resection with a gastroduodenal reconstruction is relatively simple to perform. The strictures are short, and hence the extent of gastric resection required is minimal. The stomach and the duodenum can be brought together in most instances without tension. Type II or III gastric injury is best treated by a distal gastrectomy and an antecolic Polya reconstruction. A type V gastric injury that extends into the duodenum or has a separate stricture of the duodenum is more difficult to manage. Resection in such instances involves a major procedure in a patient with poor general condition. Such injuries are best managed by an antecolic dependant gastrojejunostomy.
A loop gastrojejunostomy is used only when absolutely required for type I, II, or III injuries as it compromises the possibility of a future gastric pull-up for esophageal reconstruction. We employ a loop gastrojejunostomy (GJ) mainly in patients with poor general condition where resection would be hazardous. When doing a loop gastrojejunostomy, the surgeon must be prudent, avoiding a retrocolic or a non-dependant GJ. A retrocolic GJ may interfere with the middle colic arcade and make mobilization of the colon at a later date for esophageal bypass more difficult or sometimes impossible. A non-dependant GJ not only fails to drain the stomach but also produces recalcitrant bile reflux, compromising the quality of life of the patient.
It is usually not necessary to combine a vagotomy while performing a GJ for a corrosive gastric outlet obstruction. The stomach’s secretory capacity is grossly disrupted after corrosive ingestion, and the patients undergo what has been called a “physiological antrectomy” [23]. Type IV gastric injuries, which involve the entire stomach, create problems in management. When isolated and in patients whose general condition permits, they can be managed by a total gastric resection. However, besides seriously compromising the general condition of the patient, they are almost always associated with severe esophageal injuries. We have treated these patients with colonic bypass for the esophagus and anastomosing the distal end of the colon end-to-side to the proximal jejunum, leaving the stomach in situ. The results have been excellent.
There have been a few reports on the use of pyloroplasty, either a Heineke–Mickulicz type or a Y–V flap [6, 24].This has not been our practice. Augmentation gastroplasty has also been proposed as a means of increasing the volume of the stomach [25]. Balloon dilatation of the strictured pylorus has been known to be an insufficient procedure in managing patients with corrosive burns. However, Kochhar et al. have reported encouraging results with the use of endoscopic balloon dilatation for corrosive pyloric strictures [26].
There needs to be a well laid out policy regarding the management of combined gastric and esophageal strictures. When corrosive stricture of the esophagus and stomach occur simultaneously, treatment can be planned at the same sitting. If the gastric stricture precedes the esophageal stricture, it is possible to proceed with a limited gastric resection with gastroduodenal reconstruction, leaving esophageal bypass to a later date, should it become necessary. Alternatively, one can leave an indwelling nasogastric tube, do a feeding jejunostomy, and take up gastric or combined gastroesophageal reconstruction on a later date. However, gastric strictures can present even weeks to months after esophageal obstruction. In our experience, 21 out of 109 patients (19.3%) developed gastric outlet obstruction as late as 8 months after the esophageal stricture. The delayed gastric outlet obstruction may result from mild pyloric stenosis that was overlooked at the time of esophageal dilatation and that progressed, over months, to total obstruction. Another possibility is the presence of subclinical obstruction that is asymptomatic in the presence of the dysphagia caused by esophageal obstruction; later, the obstruction becomes functional as the patient starts eating after successful esophageal replacement. The delayed occurrence of such strictures has crucial implications for the management of esophageal stricture when one contemplates the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophageal substitution. In patients who have simultaneous esophageal and gastric presentation, our option has been to combine esophagocolic replacement with a gastrojejunostomy distal to the cologastric anastomosis.
Delayed gastric outlet obstruction can be a major problem if an esophageal bypass has been performed. It usually presents as dilatation of the conduit [27]. The condition should not be mistaken for cologastric stenosis. Diagnosis can be confirmed by endoscopy, and the stricture can be treated by either a distal gastric resection or a gastrojejunostomy distal to the cologastric anastomosis. The problem is more complex if delayed gastric outlet obstruction takes place after a gastric pull-up for esophageal bypass after corrosive injury. In such cases, gastric resection or gastroenterostomy is seldom feasible, and the surgeon may have to resort to a jejunal interposition. Pyloroplasty may be possible in rare instances.
The mortality and morbidity from acute corrosive gastric injuries is high and dependent on the severity of initial damage caused by the corrosive agent, with a significant proportion of patients succumbing to their injuries either before reaching tertiary care or soon thereafter. In contrast, the m
Discussion
Corrosive injuries of the stomach and esophagus are not infrequent causes of hospitalization in countries like India [1, 2, 9]. In India, hydrochloric acid is readily available over the counter as a cheap toilet cleaner and is the most common corrosive ingested by lower socioeconomic groups. The next most frequent corrosive agent implicated is gold solvent, which is a 3:1 mixture of concentrated hydrochloric and nitric acid. This preparation is not regulated and is freely available. Alkalis are the cause only in a minority of people, who have access to caustic soda in an industrial or laboratory setting, or as a more expensive toilet cleaner [10]. This is in contrast to the West, where alkali ingestion is more frequent than acid ingestion [11, 12]. Lack of appropriate regulation in the packaging, labelling, and child-proofing of these potentially hazardous substances makes corrosive poisoning a more common problem encountered in this part of the world.
Patients with chronic gastric injuries after corrosive ingestion usually present with features of gastric outlet obstruction or early satiety. But the overbearing manifestation of a concomitant esophageal stricture may mask an underlying gastric injury. Physicians must be diligent in ruling out a concomitant gastric injury in any patient with corrosive ingestion, as it has a bearing on the management of the esophageal stricture. This is discussed later. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy when possible and a barium swallow are good means of evaluating the extent and nature of the gastric injury.
It is not uncommon to encounter patients with absolute dysphagia following corrosive injury. In these patients, it becomes impossible to perform an endoscopy or even a water-soluble contrast study to assess the extent of gastric injury. In such cases we have found that a simple plain abdominal radiograph taken after overnight fasting reveals a gastric fluid level whenever there is a gastric outlet obstruction [13]. This is a much cheaper option than a computed tomography (CT) scan. There are also reports on the use of a Meckel’s scan to assess the severity of the gastric injury [14].
The ideal time for surgical intervention for a chronic corrosive gastric injury is debatable [15]. Hwang et al. proposed early definitive operation to manage these injuries [16]. Patients with chronic corrosive injuries are generally poor candidates for prolonged operations because they suffer severe nutritional deficiency. It is better to postpone surgery in such patients and resort to jejunostomy feeds to improve the general fitness status. This may take up to several months. This period also enables the mucosal lesions to heal, so that surgical anastomosis can be carried out with greater safety. Even at the end of this delay, a subset of the population still will not reach optimal levels of fitness. Therefore they can endure only less demanding operations, such as a gastric bypass, as opposed to resection.
The requirement for gastric resection as prophylaxis against future malignancy has been overstated in the literature. There have been reports of malignancy developing in a scarred esophagus or stomach after corrosive ingestion, but, in our experience this association has been found to be tenuous [17–19]. In the over 500 corrosive injuries seen over a 30-year period, there was only one solitary instance of cricopharyngeal carcinoma following esophageal burns from caustic ingestion and one case of perigastroenterostomy carcinoma 18 years after the ingestion of acid. In the latter case, it is not clear whether the carcinoma was corrosive induced or secondary to chronic bile reflux through the gastrojejunostomy stoma (stump carcinoma or postgastric surgery carcinoma).
The debate over the use of steroids in corrosive burns to prevent stricture formation has been put to rest with recent meta-analyses [20, 21]. The investigators found no benefit with the use of systemic corticosteroids in corrosive ingestion and proscribe their routine use in the prevention of stricture formation. There is, however, an isolated report of the use of intralesional steroids in corrosive pyloric strictures [22].
Once the patient has a stable pyloric or antral stricture, the preferred operation depends on several factors: (1) the general condition of the patient, (2) the need for a concomitant esophageal reconstruction, and (3) the type of chronic gastric injury.
In type I gastric injury, a limited resection with a gastroduodenal reconstruction is relatively simple to perform. The strictures are short, and hence the extent of gastric resection required is minimal. The stomach and the duodenum can be brought together in most instances without tension. Type II or III gastric injury is best treated by a distal gastrectomy and an antecolic Polya reconstruction. A type V gastric injury that extends into the duodenum or has a separate stricture of the duodenum is more difficult to manage. Resection in such instances involves a major procedure in a patient with poor general condition. Such injuries are best managed by an antecolic dependant gastrojejunostomy.
A loop gastrojejunostomy is used only when absolutely required for type I, II, or III injuries as it compromises the possibility of a future gastric pull-up for esophageal reconstruction. We employ a loop gastrojejunostomy (GJ) mainly in patients with poor general condition where resection would be hazardous. When doing a loop gastrojejunostomy, the surgeon must be prudent, avoiding a retrocolic or a non-dependant GJ. A retrocolic GJ may interfere with the middle colic arcade and make mobilization of the colon at a later date for esophageal bypass more difficult or sometimes impossible. A non-dependant GJ not only fails to drain the stomach but also produces recalcitrant bile reflux, compromising the quality of life of the patient.
It is usually not necessary to combine a vagotomy while performing a GJ for a corrosive gastric outlet obstruction. The stomach’s secretory capacity is grossly disrupted after corrosive ingestion, and the patients undergo what has been called a “physiological antrectomy” [23]. Type IV gastric injuries, which involve the entire stomach, create problems in management. When isolated and in patients whose general condition permits, they can be managed by a total gastric resection. However, besides seriously compromising the general condition of the patient, they are almost always associated with severe esophageal injuries. We have treated these patients with colonic bypass for the esophagus and anastomosing the distal end of the colon end-to-side to the proximal jejunum, leaving the stomach in situ. The results have been excellent.
There have been a few reports on the use of pyloroplasty, either a Heineke–Mickulicz type or a Y–V flap [6, 24].This has not been our practice. Augmentation gastroplasty has also been proposed as a means of increasing the volume of the stomach [25]. Balloon dilatation of the strictured pylorus has been known to be an insufficient procedure in managing patients with corrosive burns. However, Kochhar et al. have reported encouraging results with the use of endoscopic balloon dilatation for corrosive pyloric strictures [26].
There needs to be a well laid out policy regarding the management of combined gastric and esophageal strictures. When corrosive stricture of the esophagus and stomach occur simultaneously, treatment can be planned at the same sitting. If the gastric stricture precedes the esophageal stricture, it is possible to proceed with a limited gastric resection with gastroduodenal reconstruction, leaving esophageal bypass to a later date, should it become necessary. Alternatively, one can leave an indwelling nasogastric tube, do a feeding jejunostomy, and take up gastric or combined gastroesophageal reconstruction on a later date. However, gastric strictures can present even weeks to months after esophageal obstruction. In our experience, 21 out of 109 patients (19.3%) developed gastric outlet obstruction as late as 8 months after the esophageal stricture. The delayed gastric outlet obstruction may result from mild pyloric stenosis that was overlooked at the time of esophageal dilatation and that progressed, over months, to total obstruction. Another possibility is the presence of subclinical obstruction that is asymptomatic in the presence of the dysphagia caused by esophageal obstruction; later, the obstruction becomes functional as the patient starts eating after successful esophageal replacement. The delayed occurrence of such strictures has crucial implications for the management of esophageal stricture when one contemplates the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophageal substitution. In patients who have simultaneous esophageal and gastric presentation, our option has been to combine esophagocolic replacement with a gastrojejunostomy distal to the cologastric anastomosis.
Delayed gastric outlet obstruction can be a major problem if an esophageal bypass has been performed. It usually presents as dilatation of the conduit [27]. The condition should not be mistaken for cologastric stenosis. Diagnosis can be confirmed by endoscopy, and the stricture can be treated by either a distal gastric resection or a gastrojejunostomy distal to the cologastric anastomosis. The problem is more complex if delayed gastric outlet obstruction takes place after a gastric pull-up for esophageal bypass after corrosive injury. In such cases, gastric resection or gastroenterostomy is seldom feasible, and the surgeon may have to resort to a jejunal interposition. Pyloroplasty may be possible in rare instances.
The mortality and morbidity from acute corrosive gastric injuries is high and dependent on the severity of initial damage caused by the corrosive agent, with a significant proportion of patients succumbing to their injuries either before reaching tertiary care or soon thereafter. In contrast, the m
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..