4.1 Article

Lower esophageal palisade vessels and the definition of Barrett's esophagus

Journal

DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 645-649

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2008.00825.x

Keywords

Barrett's esophagus; columnar-lined esophagus; lower esophageal palisade vessels

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The designated area of the columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) is anatomically defined by the distal limit of the lower esophageal palisade vessels (LEPV) and the term 'Barrett's esophagus' is equally used along with the name CLE in Japan. The aim of this study was to investigate the actual prevalence of CLE based on the Japanese criteria and to evaluate the criteria per se. A total of 42 esophagi consecutively resected at this institute were included. All subjects underwent a surgical resection for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. The position of the LEPV, squamocolumnar junction, the prevalence of CLE and intestinal metaplasia were investigated both pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative endoscopy revealed CLE based on the Japanese criteria in half of all patients. In the resected specimens the distal limit of LEPV was lower than the squamocolumnar junction in 95.2%. In other words, almost all cases had CLE (equivalent to Barrett's mucosa in Japanese criteria). However, most of the CLE areas were very short and their average maximum length was only about 5 mm. In addition, no intestinal metaplasia was observed in any of the CLE cases. Almost all individuals might therefore be diagnosed to have CLE or Barrett's mucosa based on precise endoscopic observations in Japan. The CLE located in a small area, e.g. less than 5 mm, defined according to the LEPV criteria without any other factor concerning typical Barrett's esophagus such as signs of gastroesophageal reflux should therefore be excluded from consideration as a high-risk mucosa.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available