4.1 Article

High-Tech Diagnostic Methods and Enteroscopic Treatment of Children with Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 529-535

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3400286

关键词

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; endoscopy; enteroscopy; children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is an autosomal dominant hereditary hamartomatous polyposis with predominant localization in the jejunum and ileum and high risk of bowel perforation after traditional polypectomy. The modern enteroscopy is the only possible technique for visualizing and performing intraluminal endoscopic microsurgical manipulations in the deep sections of the small intestine. The study aims to develop an optimal method for the diagnosis and treatment of polyps in children with PJS. Materials and Methods During 2015 to 2018 we conducted 30 comprehensive examinations of children with PJS in The Department of Endoscopic Research of the National Medical Research Center for Children's Health. We performed esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy with removal of polyps more than 7mm, then video capsule endoscopy and, guided by this, therapeutic single-balloon enteroscopy. Our technique for removal of polyps is general in all parts: (1) creating a resistant pillow; (2) electroexcision of polyp; (3) clipping the removal site. Results Successfully performed electroexcision of polyps, which were located in the deep parts of the small intestine at a distance of 30 segments (one segment is 10cm), reached a diameter of 2.5cm, had a long pedicle. The postoperative period was uneventful. Conclusion We have developed an optimal method of diagnostic and therapeutic measures, the observance of which allows us to avoid delayed perforations of the small intestine in the area of polypectomy in the postoperative period in children with PJS. Thanks to this technique, modern enteroscopy is becoming the only possible alternative to bowel resection in children with PJS.

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

4.1
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