Endoscopic diagnosis versus histologic diagnosis in children with esophagitis

Authors

  • Cláudia Souza Pires
  • Fernanda Nunes Paes
  • Fernanda Santos Barros
  • Maria Clotildes Nunes de Melo
  • Rita Melo Franca
  • Ramiro Mascarenhas
  • Simone Baptista
  • Luciana Rodrigues Silva

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9771/cmbio.v2i2.4265

Keywords:

Esofagite, Diagnóstico endoscópico, Diagnóstico histológico, Esofagite em crianças.

Abstract

The gastroesophageal reflux means the retrograde flow from the gastric content to the esophagus. The gastroesophageal reflux disease is the condition in which symptoms and/or digestive complications are present, including the esophagitis. The diagnosis of the esophagitis is made through the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and through the histopathologic evaluation of the esophageal mucosa. This study aimed at comparing endoscopical and histopathologic findings of that area in children with esophagitis. The results of 125 children’s UGEs and biopsies, aging 0 to 18 years old with esophagitis, from 1997 to 2001, were reviewed. Among those patients, 69 (52,20 %) were female. In the endoscopical results, 104 (83,20%) patients had edematous esophagitis; in the histological study, 48 (33,40%) children presented chronic esophagitis and there were no alterations in 29 (23,20%). When compared to the histopathology, the UGE results are not so trustful that one may only rely on that evaluation. It is mandatory the accomplishment of the biopsy for diagnosing this pathology and for future comparisons with the patient’s evolution. Multiple biopsies must be made in order to analyze comprehensively the whole process and to identify Barrett esophagus early.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2003-01-01

How to Cite

Pires, C. S., Paes, F. N., Barros, F. S., Melo, M. C. N. de, Franca, R. M., Mascarenhas, R., Baptista, S., & Silva, L. R. (2003). Endoscopic diagnosis versus histologic diagnosis in children with esophagitis. Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences, 2(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.9771/cmbio.v2i2.4265

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4