Colonic interposition for esophageal replacement in children remains a good choice: 33-year median follow-up of 65 patients

IntroductionGastric pull-up has become the predominant technique for esophageal replacement because of allegedly deficient results of colon grafts. This retrospective study examines the long-term results in a large series of colonic interpositions.Patients and MethodOne hundred six children (median, 2.9 years; range, 0.32-15 years) had their esophagus replaced between 1965 and 2008, of which 96 had colon grafts. Those survivors who were 18 years and older were contacted and, if willing, interviewed, examined, and had their functional ability rated using the Karnofsky index.ResultsNinety-six children had undergone a colon graft, and of these, 9 (9.3%) died. There were 65 long-term survivors whose indications for surgery included caustic injury (n = 32), failed tracheoesophageal fistula repair (n = 16), pure esophageal atresia (n = 14), and others (n = 3). The graft was either retrosternal (n = 49) or mediastinal (n = 16 patients). Twelve patients were unavailable for long-term assessment. After a median follow-up of 33.3 (11-41) years, 23 (43%) of 53 individuals experienced mild symptoms of reflux; scoliosis, 12 (22%) of 53, and/or other complications, 15 (27%) of 53 required further surgery.Thirty-two patients (60%) with Karnofsky indexes of 80% or higher felt healthy, 19 (36%) had mild life-style limitations (index, 40%-80%), and 2 had indexes less than 40%. Most patients live normal lives.ConclusionsColon conduits restored gastrointestinal continuity with limited mortality and considerable morbidity but good functional outcome and health perception in the long-term. Our study suggests that colon grafts are no worse than gastric pull-ups in the long-term.