Advertisement

Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 34, Issue 7, pp 781–788 | Cite as

Correlation of 99mTc sucralfate scan and endoscopic grading in caustic oesophageal injury

  • Babalwa B. Nondela
  • Sharon G. Cox
  • Anita Brink
  • Alastair J. W. Millar
  • Alp Numanoglu
Original Article
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine a correlation between the 99mTc sucralfate scan and the endoscopy findings in children with caustic oesophageal injury.

Methods

This is an observational analytic study of children who had both 99mTc sucralfate scan and endoscopy after caustic substance ingestion at our institution in a period between January 2009 and September 2016. The oesophageal injury was classified into low grade and high grade according to the degree of adhesion on 99mTc sucralfate scan and modification of Zargar endoscopic grading.

Results

Out of a total of 197 children, 40 children were identified who had both investigations done on average 26 h post-injury. Low-grade adhesion on 99mTc sucralfate scan was found in 27 children (68%), and all had low-grade Zargar’s oesophageal injuries. None of these subsequently developed residual pathology. Thirteen had high-grade adhesion and five of these had high-grade injury on endoscopy. Three (23%) developed oesophageal strictures. Correlation of 99mTc sucralfate and endoscopic findings reached statistical significance with a p value of 0.0014. No morbidity was associated with either the scan or endoscopy.

Conclusions

We concluded that low-grade sucralfate scan finding has the potential to successfully eliminate the need for invasive endoscopy under general anaesthesia and thereby reducing procedure-related morbidity, hospitalization and associated costs. However, mandatory endoscopy is required in children with high-grade adhesion seen on 99mTc sucralfate scan. This requires confirmation using a larger prospective study.

Keywords

Caustic substance ingestion Caustic oesophageal injury Oesophagitis 99mTc sucralfate scan Paediatric 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Adedeji TO, Tobih JE, Olaosun AO, Sogebi OA (2013) Corrosive oesophageal injuries: a preventable menace. Pan Afr Med J 15:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Millar AJ, Cox SG (2015) Caustic injury of the oesophagus. Pediatr Surg Int 31(2):111–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Othman N, Kendrick D (2010) Epidemiology of burn injuries in the East Mediterranean Region: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 10(1):83CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sánchez-Ramírez CA, Larrosa-Haro A, Vásquez-Garibay EM, Macías-Rosales R (2012) Socio-demographic factors associated with caustic substance ingestion in children and adolescents. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76(2):253–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Urganci N, Usta M, Kalyoncu D, Demirel E (2014) Corrosive substance ingestion in children. Indian J Pediatr 81(7):675–679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uygun I (2015) Caustic oesophagitis in children: prevalence, the corrosive agents involved, and management from primary care through to surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 23(6):423–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arunachalam R, Rammohan A (2016) Corrosive injury of the upper gastrointestinal tract: a review. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2(1):056–062Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hesham A-Kader H (2010) Foreign body ingestion: children like to put objects in their mouth. World J Pediatr 6(4):301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karaman I, Koc O, Karaman A, Erdogan D, Cavusoglu YH, Afsarlar CE et al (2015) Evaluation of 968 children with corrosive substance ingestion. Indian J Crit Care Med 19(12):714–718CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rafeey M, Ghojazadeh M, Sheikhi S, Vahedi L (2016) Caustic ingestion in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Caring Sci 5(3):251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Millar A, Numanoglu A (2012) Caustic strictures of the esophagus. In: Coran A (ed) Pediatric surgery. PA Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia, pp 919–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zargar SA, Kochhar R, Mehta S, Mehta SK (1991) The role of fiberoptic endoscopy in the management of corrosive ingestion and modified endoscopic classification of burns. Gastrointest Endosc 37(2):165–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poley J-W, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, Dees J, Hartmans R, Tilanus HW et al (2004) Ingestion of acid and alkaline agents: outcome and prognostic value of early upper endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 60(3):372–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uygun I, Aydogdu B, Okur M, Arayici Y, Celik Y, Ozturk H et al (2012) Clinico-epidemiological study of caustic substance ingestion accidents in children in Anatolia: the DROOL score as a new prognostic tool. Acta Chirurgica Belgica 112(5):346 – 54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta SK, Croffie JM, Fitzgerald JF (2001) Is esophagogastroduodenoscopy necessary in all caustic ingestions? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 32(1):50–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Millar A, Numanoglu A, Mann M, Marven S, Rode H (2001) Detection of caustic oesophageal injury with technetium 99 m-labelled sucralfate. J Pediatr Surg 36(2):262–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janssen T, van Dijk M, van As A (2015) Cost-effectiveness of the sucralfate technetium 99 m isotope-labelled esophagal scan to assess esophageal injury in children after caustic ingestion. Emerg Med Open J 1(1):17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Betalli P, Falchetti D, Giuliani S, Pane A, Dall’Oglio L, de’Angelis GL et al (2008) Caustic ingestion in children: is endoscopy always indicated? The results of an Italian multicenter observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 68(3):434–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crama-Bohbouth G, Arndt J, Pena A, Blok D, Verspaget H, Weterman I et al (1988) Is radiolabelled sucralphate scintigraphy of any use in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease? Nuclear Med Commun 9(8):591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobs F, Thierens H, Piepsz A, Bacher K, Van De Wiele C, Ham H et al (2005) Optimised tracer-dependent dosage cards to obtain weight-independent effective doses. Eur J Nuclear Med Mol Imag 32(5):581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arnold M, Numanoglu A (2017) Caustic ingestion in children-A review. Semin Pediatr Surg 26(2):95–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohamed F (2015) A 4-year analysis of calls answered by the staff at Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital (RCWMCH) Poisons Information Centre (PIC) in South Africa, Dissertation, University of CardiffGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bosher L Jr, Burford T, Ackerman L (1951) The pathology of experimentally produced lye burns and strictures of the esophagus. J Thorac Surg 1(5):483–489Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doğan Y, Erkan T, Çokuğraş F, Kutlu T (2006) Caustic gastroesophageal lesions in childhood: an analysis of 473 cases. Clin Pediatr 45(5):435–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trabelsi M, Loukhil M, Boukthir S, Hammami A, Bennaceur B (1990) Accidental ingestion of caustics in Tunisian children. Report of 125 cases. Pediatrie 45(11):801–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamza AF, Abdelhay S, Sherif H, Hasan T, Soliman H, Kabesh A et al (2003) Caustic esophageal strictures in children: 30 years’ experience. J Pediatr Surg 38(6):828–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen T-Y, Ko S-F, Chuang J-H, Kuo H-W, Tiao M-M (2003) Predictors of esophageal stricture in children with unintentional ingestion of caustic agents. Chang Gung Med J 26(4):233–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Contini S, Swarray-Deen A, Scarpignato C (2009) Oesophageal corrosive injuries in children: a forgotten social and health challenge in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 87(12):950–954CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lupa M, Magne J, Guarisco JL, Amedee R (2009) Update on the diagnosis and treatment of caustic ingestion. Ochsner J 9(2):54–59PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Lusong MAA, Timbol ABG, Tuazon DJS (2017) Management of esophageal caustic injury. World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology therapeutics 8(2):90CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parsak CK, Sakman G (2010) The efficiency of sucralfate in corrosive esophagitis: a randomized, prospective study. Turk J Gastroenterol 21(1):7–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Temir ZG, Karkıner A, Karaca I, Ortaç R, Özdamar A (2005) The effectiveness of sucralfate against stricture formation in experimental corrosive esophageal burns. Surg Today 35(8):617–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Babalwa B. Nondela
    • 1
  • Sharon G. Cox
    • 1
  • Anita Brink
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alastair J. W. Millar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alp Numanoglu
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Paediatric Surgery, Red Cross War Memorial Children’s HospitalUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Red Cross War Memorial Children’s HospitalUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations