4.6 Review

Upper gastrointestinal tract involvement of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: A pathological review

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 25, 期 16, 页码 1928-1935

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i16.1928

关键词

Pediatric; Inflammatory bowel disease; Lymphocytic esophagitis; Focally enhanced gastritis; Epithelioid granuloma; Crohn's disease; Ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract involvement of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is commonly seen in pediatric patients. Upper endoscopy is included in the routine workup of children with suspected IBD to enhance the diagnosis and management of these patients. Currently, childhood IBD is classified into ulcerative colitis (UC), atypical UC, Crohn's disease (CD) and IBD unclassified. Histologic confirmation of UGI tract involvement, in particular the presence of epithelioid (non-caseating) granulomas, is helpful in confirming the diagnosis of IBD and its classification. Herein, we reviewed selected IBD-associated UGI tract manifestations in children. Lymphocytic esophagitis, seen predominantly in CD, is histologically characterized by increased intraepithelial lymphocytes (> 20 in one high-power field) in a background of mucosal injury with absence of granulocytes. Focally enhanced gastritis is a form of gastric inflammation in pediatric IBD marked by a focal lymphohistiocytic pit inflammation with or without granulocytes and plasma cells in a relatively normal background gastric mucosa. Duodenal inflammation seen in children with IBD includes cryptitis, villous flattening, increased intraepithelial lymphocytes, and lamina propria eosinophilia. Finally, epithelioid granulomas not associated with ruptured gland/crypt are a diagnostic feature of CD. The clinicopathologic correlation and differential diagnosis of each microscopic finding are discussed. Clinicians and pathologists should be cognizant of the utility and limitations of these histologic features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据