EVAC is a novel, promising technique for the treatment of esophageal perforations in a pediatric population. This treatment is comparable to esophageal stenting in iatrogenic endoscopic therapy perforations and superior to stenting surgical perforations. Further prospective studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of EVAC to esophageal stenting. Improvement in device design and customization could further improve success and ease of placement.

Objective: Esophagitis is highly prevalent in patients with esophageal atresia (EA). Peptic esophagitis has long been assumed to be the primary cause of esophagitis in this population, and prolonged acid suppressive medication usage is common; such treatment is of unknown benefit and carries potential risk. Methods: To better understand the role of commonly used antireflux treatments in EA, we analyzed all patients with repaired EA who underwent endoscopy with biopsies at our institution between January 2016 and August 2018. Macroscopic erosive and histologic esophagitis on biopsy was graded per predefined criteria. Clinical characteristics including acid suppressive medication usage, type of EA and repair, presence of hiatal hernia, and history of fundoplication were reviewed. Results: There were 310 unique patients (33.5% long gap EA) who underwent 576 endoscopies with biopsies during the study period. Median age at endoscopy was 3.7 years (interquartile range 21–78 months). Erosive esophagitis was found in 8.7% of patients (6.1% of endoscopies); any degree of histologic eosinophilia (≥1 eosinophil/high power field [HPF]) was seen in 56.8% of patients (48.8% of endoscopies), with >15 eosinophils/HPF seen in 15.2% of patients (12.3% of endoscopies). Acid suppression was common; 86.9% of endoscopies were preceded by acid suppressive medication use. Fundoplication had been performed in 78 patients (25.2%). Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and/or H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use were the only significant predictors of reduced odds for abnormal esophageal biopsy (P = 0.011 for PPI, P = 0.048 for H2RA, and P = 0.001 for PPI combined with H2RA therapy). However, change in intensity of acid suppressive therapy by either dosage or frequency was not significantly associated with change in macroscopic erosive or histologic esophagitis (P > 0.437 and P > 0.13, respectively). Presence or integrity of a fundoplication was not significantly associated with esophagitis (P = 0.236). Conclusions: In EA patients, acid suppressive medication therapy is associated with reduced odds of abnormal esophageal biopsy, though histologic esophagitis is highly prevalent even with high rates of acid suppressive medication use. Esophagitis is likely multifactorial in EA patients, with peptic esophagitis as only one of multiple possible etiologies for esophageal inflammation. The clinical significance of histologic eosinophilia in this population warrants further investigation.

EIT shows promise as an adjunct treatment option for pediatric refractory esophageal strictures and may be considered before surgical resection even in severe cases. The complication rate, albeit low, is significant, and EIT should only be considered by experienced endoscopists in close consultation with surgery. Further prospective longitudinal studies are needed to validate this treatment.

Objectives: The role of intralesional steroid injection (ISI) in the treatment of anastomotic stricture in patients with esophageal atresia remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ISI. Methods: A total of 158 patients with esophageal atresia with at least 1 ISI for the treatment of esophageal anastomotic stricture between 2010 and 2017 were identified. The change in stricture diameter (ΔD) was compared between procedures with dilation alone (ISI−) and dilation with steroid injection (ISI+). Results: A total of 1055 balloon dilations were performed (452 ISI+). The median ΔD was significantly greater in the ISI+ group: 1 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 0, 3) versus 0 mm (IQR −1, 1.5) (P < 0.0001). The ISI+ group had greater percentage of improved diameter (P < 0.0001) and lesser percentages of unchanged and decreased diameters at subsequent endoscopy (P = 0.0009, P = 0.003). Multivariable logistic regression confirmed the significance of ISI on increasing the likelihood of improved stricture diameter with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.24 (95% confidence interval: 2.15–4.88) (P < 0.001). The ΔD for the first 3 ISI+ procedures was greater than the ΔD for subsequent ISI+ procedures: 1 mm (IQR 0, 3) versus 0.5 mm (IQR−1.25, 2) (P = 0.001). There was no difference in perforation incidence between ISI+ and ISI− groups (P = 0.82). Conclusions: ISI with dilation was well tolerated and improved anastomotic stricture diameter more than dilation alone. The benefit of ISI over dilation alone was limited to the first 3 ISI procedures.

Benign anal disease encompasses common problems including hemorrhoids, anal fissures, pruritus ani, perianal abscesses, and fistulae. Although many people will suffer from at least one of these conditions in their lives, healthcare practitioners diagnose and treat them accurately about 50% to 83% of the time. This article reviews common anal problems and the importance of a thorough history and physical examination to proper patient management.