• Users Online: 378
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 54  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 39-44

Duplications of the alimentary tract in infants and children


Department of Paediatric Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India

Date of Submission06-Aug-2020
Date of Decision24-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance16-Sep-2020
Date of Web Publication20-Mar-2021

Correspondence Address:
Sandip Kumar Rahul
S/O Shri Kapil kumar Jha, Qr. No. - BN-2/B, IGIMS Campus, Patna - 800 014, Bihar
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/fjs.fjs_137_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Duplications of the alimentary tract are known for their embryonic, anatomical, clinical, and pathologic variations. Summarizing the features of these lesions would reveal these characteristics and guide appropriate management. The objectives of this study are to describe the clinical features and characteristics of all cases of duplication of alimentary tract managed at a tertiary center.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective study on all cases of duplications of the alimentary tract managed at a tertiary center from July 2015 to June 2020 (5 years) was conducted after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Data regarding history, demographic details, symptoms, clinical features and investigation results, and intraoperative and histopathologic findings were collected from the hospital records and analyzed.
Results: Twenty-eight cases of duplication were managed during this period. They had different locations (esophageal-5 [cervical-2 and thoracic-3], gastric-1, jejunal-3, ileal – 11, cecal-3, appendicular-2, colorectal-1, rectal-1, and posterior anal canal-1) and site-specific symptoms but definite histopathology with evidence of adjacent gastrointestinal tissue on microscopic examination. Unique cases included cervical esophageal duplication, bleeding ileal duplication (ID) with heterotopic mucosa, ID with bezoar, jejunal duplication with malrotation, appendicular duplication with type 2 pouch colon and anorectal malformation, rectal duplication, and posterior anal duplication. Case-specific management ensured minimal complication without any mortality.
Conclusion: Variable location and site-specific symptoms necessitate individualized case-specific management of duplication anomalies. Histopathology confirms both native and heterotopic gastrointestinal tissues and is indispensable for the diagnosis.

Keywords: Alimentary tract, duplication, histopathology


How to cite this article:
Keshri R, Prasad R, Chaubey D, Hasan Z, Kumar V, Thakur VK, Yadav R, Kumar R, Bakhtiyar AK, Rahul SK. Duplications of the alimentary tract in infants and children. Formos J Surg 2021;54:39-44

How to cite this URL:
Keshri R, Prasad R, Chaubey D, Hasan Z, Kumar V, Thakur VK, Yadav R, Kumar R, Bakhtiyar AK, Rahul SK. Duplications of the alimentary tract in infants and children. Formos J Surg [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 13];54:39-44. Available from: https://www.e-fjs.org/text.asp?2021/54/2/39/311585




  Introduction Top


Duplications of the alimentary tract (DAT) are known to involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and may present with a range of symptoms depending upon their size, site, local mass effect, and the presence of ectopic tissues.[1],[2],[3] They may also be seen in association with other anomalies.[4],[5],[6] Very often, they are unexpectedly encountered intra-operatively; appropriate surgical management requires that the surgeons be familiar with the anatomy and clinical characteristics of these lesions.

Through this study, we summarize the presentation, clinical features, and management of DAT at different locations in GIT at our institution in the past 5 years.


  Materials and Methods Top


A retrospective, descriptive, observational study was conducted on all patients of DAT managed in the department of pediatric surgery at a tertiary center after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee with approval letter No (1694/IEC/2020/IGIMS). This study included all the patients in whom duplication of any portion of alimentary tract was either diagnosed preoperatively and confirmed at the time of surgery or found unexpectedly intraoperatively, when surgery was done for some related problems. The study period ranged from July 2015 to June 2020 (5 years). Consent of parents was obtained before the inclusion of these children in the study.

The case records and intraoperative findings of all cases of DAT were collected to get detailed history, demographic details (age, sex, and residence), presenting symptoms, examination findings, investigation results (blood, radiological, and Meckel scan), intra-operative findings, histopathological examination (HPE) results, and follow-up details. Data thus collected were analyzed.


  Results Top


The presenting age of the patients varied from 3 days to 8 years. 19/28 patients presented below 1 year of age with different symptoms. Males (24/28) outnumbered females (4/28). The presenting symptoms varied depending on the site and size of the lesion, its local pressure effect, and histopathology.

[Figure 1] shows the clinical and intraoperative pictures of duplication cysts at different sites at common (ileal) and uncommon locations (cervical esophageal and appendicular and posterior anal canal). [Table 1] summarizes the clinical presentation, intra-operative findings, and management of duplication cysts.
Figure 1: Picture Collage of duplication anomalies at different sites

Click here to view
Table 1: Clinical presentation, intra-operative findings, and management of duplication cysts

Click here to view


Two cases of cervical esophageal duplications were seen; this location has been reported to be rare in the literature.[7],[8],[9] By contrast, esophageal duplication in the thoracic region is more common, and we found three such cases in our study.

Moving down in the GIT, we found a case of tubular gastric duplication adherent to the greater curvature of the stomach. Both cases of appendicular duplication were seen in neonates with anorectal malformation (ARM) and had type 2 pouch colon distally. Both these appendicular duplication were of B1 type and mimicked the appendicular anatomy seen in birds.[10]

Cecal duplication was seen in three children; two cases presented with intussusception below 6 months of age with intraluminal cecal duplication acting as a lead point to ileo-cecal intussusception. Another case of cecal duplication was antenatally detected and caused only partial luminal occlusion without causing obstruction. This child was followed up with periodic abdominal sonogram and had laparoscopy-assisted resection at 1 year of age.

Colorectal duplication was found in a child of rectovestibular fistula (RVF) with vaginal atresia. This patient was later found to have a nonfunctioning duplex ectopic right kidney and a left megaureter.

A case of rectal duplication was found while operating upon a case of RVF; the lesion could be excised totally through this approach and healthy bowel proximal to it was pulled down to perform anoplasty. There was also a rare case of the posterior anal duplication in a female child who presented with a narrow caliber luminal lesion just posterior to the normal anus.

In esophageal and gastric duplication, excision was possible without disturbing the native esophagus or stomach. However, in jejunoileal and cecal duplication, resection of involved segment and end-to-end anastomosis of healthy bowel was needed. In two cases which presented in emergency in a sick state, ileostomy was fashioned after excision of duplicated segment; stoma reversal was done after 6 months. Rectal and colorectal duplication needed excision of the bowel segment containing duplication and fashioning a neo-anus from the healthy bowel. Posterior anal duplication was excised through the posterior sagittal route and the entire tract up to the coccyx needed excision. In all cases, HPE results showed evidence of corresponding native tissue of GIT with which it was adherent; ectopic gastric and pancreatic mucosa were found in a patient of ileal duplication (ID) with blood mixed stool.

There was no mortality in the study. All these patients were symptom-free in the postoperative period. Both children (with rectal and colo-rectal duplication), in whom neo-anus was created after excision of duplicated segment and pulling down the healthy bowel did well with rectal washes and serial neo-anal dilatation. There was no incontinence in the child with posterior anal duplication as the native anus was left undisturbed within the confines of its sphincter. Child with RVF and vaginal atresia was the most complicated among these patients. She also had a nonfunctioning ectopic right duplex moiety with persistent urinary leak due to ectopic ureteric insertion; also, the left ureter was an obstructed megaureter. She needed excision of the ectopic right duplex moiety and left ureteric reimplantation and is doing well as a 3-year-old child now. Vaginal reconstruction has been planned in her at a later date at around 10 years of age or at the time of attaining puberty.


  Discussion Top


DAT can involve any part of GIT.[11] Their presenting features may vary depending on their site, size, associated anomalies, and HPE features.[11] Although these lesions are well-known anomalies in pediatric patients, their etiology and embryology are still not well understood with theories such as aberrant recanalization, split notochord theory, diverticular theory, or the role of environmental factors.[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] It is also not known whether a single theory can explain duplication at different sites. Associated anomalies can sometimes unravel the missing links or causes behind DAT. Hence, such descriptive studies still hold relevance.

We observed that more infants presented with DAT when compared to older children and males were far more affected than females. This is in line with the observation of other investigators.[3],[11],[22],[23]

Duplication of esophagus is reported to occur more commonly in its thoracic part; cervical esophageal duplications are rare as seen in this study.[9],[24] While cervical lesions presented with an obvious swelling locally with pressure symptoms such as noisy breathing and difficulty in swallowing, thoracic duplications presented with only dysphagic symptoms. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan was used to delineate the anatomy before formal excision of the lesion. These lesions could be excised without opening the wall of the native esophagus. HPE showed cyst wall lined by predominantly cuboidal epithelium, focally exhibiting stratification. Subepithelium showed glands below which the double layer of smooth muscle could be appreciated. Cystic lesions must fulfil the criteria laid down by Palmar to be called duplication cysts.[5],[25] In the esophagus, this implies that the cyst should lie within the esophageal wall or be attached to its wall, it should have two muscle layers and an inner layer consisting of the epithelium of the GIT or respiratory tract.

Gastric duplications have been described to constitute around 2%–9% of DAT.[26] Most of them are seen along the greater curvature (like our case), and only a few of them along the lesser curvature. Gastric duplication in this study could be excised completely without opening the stomach wall because it was not communicating with the stomach. Most of the gastric duplication cysts reported in literature are of noncommunicating type.[26],[27] HPE features revealed the cyst wall lining, its cavity, gastric mucosal lining, and muscle layers.

Duodenal duplications are rare, comprising 2%–12% of all GIT duplication[28],[29] and have been reported with the symptoms of local mass effect leading to bilious vomiting and upper abdominal fullness. We, however, did not encounter any duodenal duplication in our series.

Duplications involving the small bowel are the most common among DAT.[11],[29],[30] In our series also, Jejuno-ID s contributed to around 50% of all DAT; also, ID were exceedingly common when compared to jejunal duplication. These cases presented differently. An 8-year-old patient presented with repeated bilious vomiting and chronic abdominal pain; he was found to have malrotation, midgut volvulus, and jejunal duplication. Such an association is rare and has been described by only a few investigators.[31],[32],[33] Ladd's bands in this patient were thick, and chronic pain could be attributed to the episodes of twisting and nontwisting of the bowel.[34],[35]

Another patient of ID presented as a 2-year-old male child with lower GIT bleeding and on doing Meckel scan (using Technetium 99-m pertechnetate scintigraphy), ectopic gastric mucosa could be found at more than one place in the small bowel. At exploratory laparotomy, there was ID and meckel diverticulum (MD) in the same patient, and it was the ID which was seen to be the site of bleeding and not the MD. This unusual case had simultaneous presence of both heterotopic gastric and pancreatic mucosa; MD had also ectopic gastric tissue, but it was not responsible for bleeding in this patient. Although ectopic gastric mucosa in duplication cysts has been previously reported and around 20%–30% of duplications have been found to have either heterotopic gastric or pancreatic mucosa,[36],[37] such simultaneous presentation with MD and both bearing ectopic mucosa but only one showing the evidence of bleeding has rarely been described. Milbrandt and Sigalet described a case of intussusception associated with both MD and ID.[38]

Another atypical presentation was in a case of ileal narrowing because of ID proximal to which massive dilatation of ileum due to a giant mixed bezoar was seen; this obstructed the small bowel. During laparotomy, ID was seen to cause luminal narrowing which led to a massive bezoar proximally. Such presentation has seldom been reported in the literature.

We also found ID in cases of high ARM, when they were operated for abdomino-perineal pull through. Because they were asymptomatic, resection was not done as these neonates were already having a major surgery and we did not want to unnecessarily prolong the surgical and anesthetic procedure. However, these children have been kept on close follow-up with periodic abdominal sonograms.

Some other modes of presentation of jejuno-IDs were by the features of intestinal obstruction, perforation, or chance finding during laparotomy for an unrelated cause. In all these cases (except perforation), resection of involved segment and anastomosis was done. Perforation patient had stoma formation and did well when stoma reversal was done after 6 months.

Appendicular duplications are rare with an incidence of around 0.004%.[39] They have been reported to be associated with other anomalies such as ARM as in our case;[40],[41] both cases showed a single cecum with two appendices, symmetrically on either side of the ileo-cecal valve (Type B1, Cave and Wallbridge classification).[10] Cecum had a type 2 pouch colon distally which ended with a fistulous communication to the urinary bladder in both neonates. Chadha and Khan described the association of Type 2 pouch colon with various appendicular anomalies such as its absence, duplication, or short stuby length.[42] After division of the fistula, we mobilized the pouch colon and took it down to fashion a neoanus without disturbing any of the two appendices. Both children are around 1 year of age now and are doing well with bowel management program consisting of serial neoanal dilatation and daily rectal washes with normal saline and glycerine.

Three patients in our series had cecal duplication. In two patients under 6 months of age, intraluminal cecal duplication was the lead point to ileo-colic intussusception and both children did well after resection and ileo-ascending anastomosis. Third child had an antenatally detected cecal duplication which was asymptomatic after birth. This patient was followed by serial ultrasound abdomen and underwent resection and anastomosis electively at 1 year of age. The rarity of cecal duplication can be judged by the findings of Radhakrishna et al. who reported that only 43 cases of cecal duplication had been reported before his publication in 2018.[43] Most of the cases reported have presentation within the 1st year of life and obstructive features of the bowel or intussusception are the common modes of presentation.[43]

Colonic and rectal duplication cysts are known to contribute to 13% and 4% of all cases of abdominal duplication cysts.[44],[45] In our series, only one case of colo-rectal duplication was found, and this was in a female child with RVF and vaginal atresia in whom laparotomy was done to do abdominoperineal pull through to create a neoanus, while doing this procedure duplication of distal sigmoid and proximal rectum was found and this anomalous segment was resected and neoanus fashioned after pulling down the healthy bowel. Later, this patient also was found to have anomalies of the urinary system. Rectal duplication was similarly found while performing posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) for RVF. Rectal duplication has been described in the differential diagnosis of swellings in the presacral space[46] and can be associated with Currarino's triad.[47] It may present with a presacral mass causing constipation, pressure effects, tenesmus, and even urinary retention;[48] ectopic mucosa may lead to abnormal rectal bleeding; there may be pain and perineal sepsis in complicated cases.[49] We could excise the entire rectal duplication completely through PSARP and healthy bowel was then pulled down to form a neoanus in the normal position. HPE features confirmed it to be a rectal duplication.

Posterior anal duplications are very rare. In fact, they have been described as the least common digestive duplication.[50] While Choi and Park consider it to be the result of recanalization of a cloacal membrane excess in late embryonic life, Hamada et al. suggests it to be an early embryonic insult in the form of duplication of the dorsal cloaca.[15] Our case was of tubular variety, which is the more common type and it extended all the way up to the coccyx; PSARP helped us in excising the entire tract. This anomaly can occur as an isolated anomaly or as a part of the caudal duplication syndrome, so magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis should be done to find out other possible results of twinning of hindgut derivatives.[6] In general, there is no incontinence in this isolated anomaly as the native anus with its sphincters is left undisturbed during the operative procedure. In grownup children, it may be confused with local fistulae as a result of perineal abscesses, pilonidal disease, or any local perineal pathology. Hence, awareness about this entity is necessary for appropriate management.


  Conclusion Top


The spectrum of DAT, its variable location, vivid presentation, and associated anomalies contribute to the complexity of its management and long-term morbidity. Proper understanding of embryology and pathology of these lesions facilitates good surgical outcome.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Zouari M, Bouthour H, Abdallah RB, Hlel Y, Malek RB, Gharbi Y, et al. Alimentary tract duplications in children: Report of 16 years' experience. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2014;11:330-3.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
2.
Patiño Mayer J, Bettolli M. Alimentary tract duplications in newborns and children: Diagnostic aspects and the role of laparoscopic treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:14263-71.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Xiang L, Lan J, Chen B, Li P, Guo C. Clinical characteristics of gastrointestinal tract duplications in children: A single-institution series review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e17682.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bui T, Bankhart MF, Mandell GA, Dickman PS, Bae JO. Thoraco-abdominal enteric duplication cyst in association with neurenteric cyst, axial skeletal anomalies, and malrotation. Radiol Case Rep 2013;8:779.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Liu R, Adler DG. Duplication cysts: Diagnosis, management, and the role of endoscopic ultrasound. Endosc Ultrasound 2014;3:152-60.  Back to cited text no. 5
  [Full text]  
6.
Gupta DK, Sharma S. Rectal duplication and anal canal duplication. In: Holschneider AM, Hutson JM, editors. Anorectal Malformations in Children: Embryology, Diagnosis, Surgical Treatment, Follow-up. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 231-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Nazem M, Amouee AB, Eidy M, Khan IA, Javed HA. Duplication of cervical oesophagus: A case report and review of literatures. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2010;7:203-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
8.
Wootton-Gorges SL, Eckel GM, Poulos ND, Kappler S, Milstein JM. Duplication of the cervical esophagus: A case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:533-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kawashima S, Segawa O, Kimura S, Tsuchiya M, Henmi N, Hasegawa H, et al. A case of cervical esophageal duplication cyst in a newborn infant. Surg Case Rep 2016;2:30.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Wallbridge PH. Double appendix. Br J Surg 1962;50:346-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Erginel B, Soysal FG, Ozbey H, Keskin E, Celik A, Karadag A, et al. Enteric duplication cysts in children: A single-institution series with forty patients in twenty-six years. World J Surg 2017;41:620-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bremer JL. Diverticula and duplication of intestinal tract. Arch Pathol 1944;38:133-40.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ravitch MM. Hind gut duplication; doubling of colon and genital urinary tracts. Ann Surg 1953;137:588-601.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Lewis FT, Thyng FW. The regular occurrence of intestinal diverticula in the embryos of the pig, rabbit and man. Am J Anat 1907;7:505-19.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Choi SO, Park WH. Anal canal duplication in infants. J Pediatr Surg 2003;38:758-62.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hamada Y, Sato M, Hioki K. Anal canal duplication in childhood. Pediatr Surg Int 1996;11:577-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Narci A, Dilek FH, Cetinkurşun S. Anal canal duplication. Eur J Pediatr 2010;169:633-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Casteels A, Lenoir P, Vandenplas Y. Rectal duplication cyst. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1995;20:443-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Parker BC, Guthrie J, France NE, Atwell JD. Gastric duplications in infancy. J Pediatr Surg 1972;7:294-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rasool N, Safdar CA, Ahmad A, Kanwal S. Enteric duplication in children: Clinical presentation and outcome. Singapore Med J 2013;54:343-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Macpherson RI. Gastrointestinal tract duplications: Clinical, pathologic, etiologic, and radiologic considerations. Radiographics 1993;13:1063-80.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Puligandla PS, Nguyen LT, St-Vil D, Flageole H, Bensoussan AL, Nguyen VH, et al. Gastrointestinal duplications. J Pediatr Surg 2003;38:740-4.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Karnak I, Ocal T, Senocak ME, Tanyel FC, Büyükpamukçu N. Alimentary tract duplications in children: Report of 26 years' experience. Turk J Pediatr 2000;42:118-25.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Thakur VK, Kumar V, Hasan Z, Yadav R, Chaubey D, Rahul SK. Cervical oesophageal duplication cyst: A case report. Res Rev 2018;7:15-7.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Nayan S, Nguyen LH, Nguyen VH, Daniel SJ, Emil S. Cervical esophageal duplication cyst: Case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Surg 2010;45:e1-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Scatizzi M, Calistri M, Feroci F, Girardi LR, Moraldi L, Rubio CA, et al. Gastric duplication cyst in an adult: Case report. In vivo 2005;19:975-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Menon P, Rao KL, Saxena AK. Duplication cyst of the stomach presenting as hemoptysis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2004;14:429-31.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Al-Harake A, Bassal A, Ramadan M, Chour M. Duodenal duplication cyst in a 52-year-old man: A challenging diagnosis and management. Int J Surg Case Rep 2013;4:296-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Ko SY, Ko SH, Ha S, Kim MS, Shin HM, Baeg MK. A case of a duodenal duplication cyst presenting as melena. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:6490-3.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Lee NK, Kim S, Jeon TY, Kim HS, Kim DH, Seo HI, et al. Complications of congenital and developmental abnormalities of the gastrointestinal tract in adolescents and adults: Evaluation with multimodality imaging. Radiographics 2010;30:1489-507.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Pandey A, Singh SP, Gupta V, Pandey J, Sachan P. Malrotation with midgut volvulus associated with perforated ileal duplication. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2013;18:155-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
32.
Somuncu S, Cakmak M, Caglayan E, Unal B. Intestinal duplication cyst associated with intestinal malrotation anomaly: Report of a case. Acta Chir Belg 2006;106:611-2.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Basany L, Aepala R, Mohan Reddy Bellary M, Chitneni M. Intestinal obstruction due to ileal duplication cyst and malrotation in a preterm neonate. J Neonatal Surg 2015;4:48.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Olajide AR, Yisau AA, Abdulraseed NA, Kashim IO, Olaniyi AJ, Morohunfade AO. Gastrointestinal duplications: Experience in seven children and a review of the literature. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2010;16:105-9.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
35.
Rahul SK, Upadhyaya VD, Kumar B. Malrotation and midgut volvulus associated with asymptomatic duplication cyst of jejunum. APSP J Case Rep 2016;7:33.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Sangüesa Nebot C, Llorens Salvador R, Carazo Palacios E, Picó Aliaga S, Ibañez Pradas V. Enteric duplication cysts in children: Varied presentations, varied imaging findings. Insights Imaging 2018;9:1097-106.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Jia HM, Zhang KR, Qu RB. Ileal duplication with extensive gastric heterotopia in a girl. World J Pediatr 2009;5:322-4.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Milbrandt K, Sigalet D. Intussusception associated with a Meckel's diverticulum and a duplication cyst. J Pediatr Surg 2008;43:E21-3.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Chew DK, Borromeo JR, Gabriel YA, Holgersen LO. Duplication of the vermiform appendix. J Pediatr Surg 2000;35:617-8.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Kothari AA, Yagnik KR, Hathila VP. Duplication of vermiform appendix. J Postgrad Med 2004;50:285-6.  Back to cited text no. 40
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
41.
McNeill SA, Rance CH, Stewart RJ. Fecolith impaction in a duplex vermiform appendix: An unusual presentation of colonic duplication. J Pediatr Surg 1996;31:1435-7.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Chadha R, Khan NA. Congenital pouch colon. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2017;22:69-78.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
43.
Radhakrishna V, Rijhwani A, Jadhav B. Cecal duplication: A mimicker of intussusception: A case report and review. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2018;31:17-9.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Castro-Poças FM, Araújo TP, Silva JD, Gonçalves VS. Endoscopic ultrasonography and rectal duplication cyst in an adult. Endosc Ultrasound 2017;6:336-9.  Back to cited text no. 44
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
45.
Heiss K. Intestinal duplications. In: Oldham KT, Colombani PM, Foglia RP, editors. Surgery of Infants and Children: Scientific Principles and Practice. 1st ed.. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 1265-74.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Anastasiadou S, Tekkis P, Kontovounisios C. An unusual rectal duplication cyst. Surg Case Rep 2019;5:75.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Azatçam M, Altun E, Avci V. Histopathological diagnostic dilemma in retrorectal developmental cysts: Report of a case and review of the literature. Turk Patoloji Derg 2018;34:175-8.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Khushbakht S, ul Haq A. Rectal duplication cyst: A rare cause of rectal prolapse in a toddler. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015;25:909-10.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Flint R, Strang J, Bissett I, Clark M, Neill M, Parry B. Rectal duplication cyst presenting as perianal sepsis: Report of two cases and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:2208-10.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Trecartin AC, Peña A, Lovell M, Bruny J, Mueller C, Urquidi M, et al. Anal duplication: Is surgery indicated? A report of three cases and review of the literature. Pediatr Surg Int 2019;35:971-8.  Back to cited text no. 50
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed503    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded66    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]