BackgroundThe aim of the present national prospective population-based study was to assess the early morbidity of esophageal atresia (EA).MethodsAll 38 multidisciplinary French centers that care for patients with EA returned a specific questionnaire about the 1-year outcome for each patient. This information was centralized, checked, and entered into a database.ResultsFrom the total population of 307 EA patients born in 2008 and 2009, data about the 1-year outcome were obtained from 301 (98%) patients, of whom 4% were lost to follow-up and 5% died. Medical complications occurred in 34% of the patients: anastomotic leaks (8%), recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula (4%), and anastomotic stenosis (22%); all of the latter group needed dilation (median, 2 dilations/patient). A new hospitalization was required for 59% of patients (2.5 hospitalizations/patient) for digestive (52%) or respiratory (48%) reasons. Twelve percent of patients required antireflux surgery at a median age of 164 days (range, 33–398 days), and 1% underwent an aortopexy for severe tracheomalacia. The weight/age Z-score was −0.8 (range, −5.5 to 3.7 months) at 12 months. Fifteen percent of patients were undernourished at 12 months of age, whereas 37% presented with respiratory symptoms and 15% had dysphagia at the last follow-up. Significant independent factors associated with medical complications were anastomotic esophageal tension (p = .0009) and presence of a gastrostomy (p = .0002); exclusive oral feeding at discharge was associated with a decreased risk of complications (p = .007).ConclusionsDigestive and respiratory morbidities remain frequent during the first year of life and are associated with difficult anastomosis and lack of full oral feeding.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13023-014-0206-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This study showed that MIS for ATD is feasible with a low rate of complications. Patients with prenatal diagnosis should have prompt surgery to prevent symptoms, despite a high rate of conversion in small infants.
Nephrogenic adenoma (NA) is a rare benign lesion of the urinary tract. Although its histogenesis is still debated, several reports suggest that the lesion has a renal tubular cell origin or differentiation. As NA can be difficult to distinguish from malignant conditions such as prostate cancer, there is a need for reliable markers. Unfortunately, it has been reported that NA cells also stained positive for the prostate cancer marker alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase (AMACR). Because all the previous studies have used an avidin-biotin (AB) detection procedure, and because cells with tubular renal differentiation are likely to contain a high level of endogenous biotin, we investigated in NA the expression of several markers including AMACR, using both AB and biotin-free detection systems. We assessed the expression of p63, cytokeratins 7 and 20, CD10 (proximal tubule marker), MUC1 (distal tubule marker), PAX2, and AMACR on 14 NAs (from 6 patients) grouped on a tissue microarray. The tissue microarray also included renal, urothelial, and prostate tissues. Staining was detected using both AB and biotin-free Envision systems. Detection with the AB procedure leads to nonspecific staining in kidney samples and NA. More specific expression was obtained by using the Envision kit, and only CK7, PAX2, and MUC1 remained positive in NA, without any AMACR staining. These findings provide supporting evidence that NA has the differentiation of distal renal tubules, and strongly suggest that AMACR, when detected with a biotin-free procedure, can be used as a reliable marker for distinguishing NA from prostate cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.