A Child with an Esophageal Web Treated with Functional Lumen Imaging Probe.

A 14-month-old male presented to the emergency department with a 4-day history of vomiting after the intake of liquids or solids. During the admission, imaging studies revealed an esophageal web, a form of congenital esophageal stenosis. He was treated with a combination of Endoluminal Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (EndoFLIP) and controlled radial expansion (CRE) balloon dilation, followed by EndoFLIP and EsoFLIP dilation 1 month later. The patient's vomiting resolved after treatment, and he was able to gain weight. This report describes one of the first cases of applying EndoFLIP and EsoFLIP to treat an esophageal web in a pediatric patient.

Esophageal dilation with EsoFLIP is faster than CRE balloon dilation combined with EndoFLIP in children.

BACKGROUND: Controlled radial expansion (CRE) balloon dilators are traditionally used to dilate esophageal strictures during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). EndoFLIP is a diagnostic tool used during an EGD to measure important parameters of the gastrointestinal lumen, capable of assessing treatment before and after dilation. EsoFLIP is a related device that combines a balloon dilator with high-resolution impedance planimetry to provide some of the luminal parameters in real time during dilation. We sought to compare procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and safety profile of esophageal dilation using either CRE balloon dilation combined with EndoFLIP (E + CRE) versus EsoFLIP alone. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed to identify patients ≤ 21 years of age who underwent an EGD with biopsy and esophageal stricture dilation using E + CRE or EsoFLIP between October 2017 and May 2022. RESULTS: Twenty-nine EGDs with esophageal stricture dilation were performed in 23 patients (19 E + CRE and 10 EsoFLIP). The two groups did not differ in age, gender, race, chief complaint, type of esophageal stricture, or history of prior gastrointestinal procedures (all p > 0.05). The most common medical history in the E + CRE and EsoFLIP groups were eosinophilic esophagitis and epidermolysis bullosa, respectively. Median procedures times were shorter in the EsoFLIP cohort compared to E + CRE balloon dilation (40.5 min [IQR 23-57 min] for the EsoFLIP group; 64 min [IQR 51-77 min] for the E + CRE group; p < 0.01). Median fluoroscopy times were also shorter for patients who underwent EsoFLIP (0.16 min [IQR 0-0.30 min] for EsoFLIP dilation; 0.30 min [IQR 0.23-0.55] for the E + CRE group; p = 0.003). There were no complications or unplanned hospitalizations in either group. CONCLUSION: EsoFLIP dilation of esophageal strictures was faster and required less fluoroscopy than CRE balloon dilation combined with EndoFLIP in children, while being equally as safe. Prospective studies are needed to further compare the two modalities.