Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 1659–1664 | Cite as

Risk Factors for Esophageal Stricture in Grade 2b and 3a Corrosive Esophageal Injuries

  • Prasit Mahawongkajit
  • Prakitpunthu Tomtitchong
  • Nuttorn Boochangkool
  • Palin Limpavitayaporn
  • Amonpon Kanlerd
  • Chatchai Mingmalairak
  • Surajit Awsakulsutthi
  • Chittinad Havanond
Original Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Publications document the risk of developing esophageal stricture as a sequential complication of esophageal injury grades 2b and 3a. Although there are studies describing the risk factors of post-corrosive stricture, there is limited literature on these factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different factors with post-corrosive esophageal stricture and non-stricture groups in endoscopic grades 2b and 3a of corrosive esophageal injuries.

Methods

Data were retrospectively analyzed in the patients with esophageal injury grades 2b and 3a between January 2011 and December 2017.

Results

One hundred ninety-six corrosive ingestion patients were admitted with 32 patients (15.8%) in grade 2b and 12 patients (6.1%) in grade 3a and stricture was developed in 19 patients (61.3%) with grade 2b and in 10 patients (83.3%) with grade 3a. The patients’ height of the non-stricture group was greater than that of stricture groups (2b stricture group, 1.58 ± 0.08 m; 2b non-stricture group, 1.66 ± 0.07 m; p < 0.004; 3a stricture group, 1.52 ± 0.09 m; 3a non-stricture group, 1.71 ± 0.02 m; p < 0.001). Omeprazole was more commonly used in the non-stricture than stricture group (26.3% in the 2b stricture group, 69.2% in the 2b non-stricture group, p = 0.017; 50% in the 3a stricture group, 100% in the 3a non-stricture group, 1.71 ± 0.02 m, p = 0.015).

Conclusions

The height of patients may help to predict the risks and the prescription of omeprazole may help to minimize the risks of 2b and 3a post-corrosive esophageal stricture.

Keywords

Corrosive esophageal injury Caustic injury Esophageal stricture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank staff members of Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, for the data of this study and special thanks to Norman Mangnall for assistance in editing the English version of this manuscript.

Authors’ Contributions

All of the author and co-author listed: Prasit Mahawongkajit, Prakitpunthu Tomtitchong, Nuttorn Boochangkool, Palin Limpavitayaporn, Amonpon Kanlerd, Chatchai Mingmalairak, Surajit Awsakulsutthi, and Chittinad Havanond, followed the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); all of the author listed in this manuscript met the four criteria of the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Havanond C. Clinical features of corrosive ingestion. J Med Assoc Thai. 2003;86(10):918–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awsakulsutthi S, Havanond C. A retrospective study of anastomotic leakage between patients with and without vascular enhancement of esophageal reconstructions with colon interposition: Thammasat University Hospital experience. Asian J Surg. 2015;38(3):145–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Havanond C, Havanond P. Initial signs and symptoms as prognostic indicators of severe gastrointestinal tract injury due to corrosive ingestion. J Emerg Med. 2007;33(4):349–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Havanond C. Is there a difference between the management of grade 2b and 3 corrosive gastric injuries? J Med Assoc Thai. 2002;85(3):340–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Contini S, Scarpignato C. Caustic injury of the upper gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive review. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(25):3918–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Are’valo-Silva C, Eliashar R, Wohlgelernter J, Elidan J, Gross M. Ingestion of caustic substances: a 15-year experience. Laryngoscope. 2006;116(8):1422–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pace F, Antinori S, Repici A. What is new in esophageal injury (infection, drug-induced, caustic, stricture, perforation)? Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2009;25(4):372–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hugh TB, Kelly MD. Corrosive ingestion and the surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189(5):508–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldman LP, Weigert JM. Corrosive substance ingestion: a review. Am J Gastroenterol 1984;79:85–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zargar SA, Kochhar R, Nagi B, Mehta S, Mehta SK. Ingestion of corrosive acids. Spectrum of injury to upper gastrointestinal tract and natural history. Gastroenterology. 1989;97(3):702–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zargar SA, Kochhar R, Nagi B, Mehta S, Mehta SK. Ingestion of strong corrosive alkalis: spectrum of injury to upper gastrointestinal tract and natural history. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87(3):337–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonavina L, Chirica M, Skrobic O, Kluger Y, Andreollo NA, Contini S, et al. Foregut caustic injuries: results of the world society of emergency surgery consensus conference. World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10:44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zargar SA, Kochhar R, Mehta S, Mehta SK. The role of fiberoptic endoscopy in the management of corrosive ingestion and modified endoscopic classification of burns. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(2):165–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cabral C, Chirica M, de Chaisemartin C, Gornet JM, Munoz-Bongrand N, Halimi B, et al. Caustic injuries of the upper digestive tract: a population observational study. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(1):214–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alipour Faz A, Arsan F, Peyvandi H, Oroei M, Shafagh O, Peyvandi M, et al. Epidemiologic Features and Outcomes of Caustic Ingestions; a 10-Year Cross-Sectional Study. Emerg (Tehran). 2017;5(1):e56.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramasamy K, Gumaste VV. Corrosive ingestion in adults. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;37(2):199–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Javed A, Pal S, Krishnan EK, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK. Surgical management and outcomes of severe gastrointestinal injuries due to corrosive ingestion. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4(5):121–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu LS, Tai WC, Hu ML, Wu KL, Chiu YC. Predicting the progress of caustic injury to complicated gastric outlet obstruction and esophageal stricture, using modified endoscopic mucosal injury grading scale. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:919870.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Le Naoures P, Hamy A, Lerolle N, Métivier E, Lermite E, Venara A. Risk factors for symptomatic esophageal stricture after caustic ingestion-a retrospective cohort study. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(6):1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Topaloglu B, Bicakci U, Tander B, Ariturk E, Kilicoglu-Aydin B, Aydin O, et al. Biochemical and histopathologic effects of omeprazole and vitamin E in rats with corrosive esophageal burns. Pediatr Surg Int. 2008;24(5):555–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cakal B, Akbal E, Köklü S, Babalı A, Koçak E, Taş A. Acute therapy with intravenous omeprazole on caustic esophageal injury: a prospective case series. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26(1):22–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arisawa T, Harata M, Kamiya Y, Shibata T, Nagasaka M, Nakamura M, et al. Is omeprazole or misoprostol superior for improving indomethacin-induced delayed maturation of granulation tissue in rat gastric ulcers? Digestion. 2006;73(1):32–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biswas K, Bandyopatdhyay U, Chattopadyay I, Varadaraj A. A novel antioxidant and anti-apoptotic role of omeprazole to block gastric ulcer through scavenging of hydroxyl radical. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(13):10993–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kil BJ, Kim IW, Shin CY, Jeong JH, Jun CH, Lee SM, et al. Comparison of IY81149 with omeprazole in rat reflux oesophagitis. J Auton Pharmacol. 2000;20(5–6):291–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim YJ, Lee JS, Hong KS, Chung JW, Kim JH, Hahm KB. Novel application of proton pump inhibitor for the prevention of colitis-induced colorectal carcinogenesis beyond acid suppression. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(8):963–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kobayashi T, Ohta Y, Inui K, Yoshino J, Nakazawa S. Protective effect of omeprazole against acute gastric mucosal lesions induced by compound 48/80, a mast cell degranulator, in rats. Pharmacol Res. 2002;46(1):75–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pozzoli C, Menozzi A, Grandi D, Solenghi E, Ossiprandi MC, Zullian C, et al. Protective effects of proton pump inhibitors against indomethacin-induced lesions in the rat small intestine. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2007;374(4):283–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prasit Mahawongkajit
    • 1
  • Prakitpunthu Tomtitchong
    • 1
  • Nuttorn Boochangkool
    • 1
  • Palin Limpavitayaporn
    • 1
  • Amonpon Kanlerd
    • 1
  • Chatchai Mingmalairak
    • 1
  • Surajit Awsakulsutthi
    • 1
  • Chittinad Havanond
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Faculty of MedicineThammasat University (Rangsit Campus)RangsitThailand

Personalised recommendations