Skip to main content

Table 4 Procedures in Patients with RDEB

From: A systematic literature review of the disease burden in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa

Variable

Data

Design, Country

Esophageal dilation (ED)

Proportion undergoing ED, % (n/N)

74 (23/31)

NR, Chile [42]

56 (157/283)

Registry analysis, US [23]

43 (34/79)

Registry analysis, UK [17]

38 (NR/25e)

Single-center, US [66]

33 (134/411)

Registry analysis, US [30]

29 (45/157)

Single-center, Germany [55]

Average EDs performed per patient, mean/median (N)

Mean, 7 [14]

Single-center, UK [65]

Median, 6 (77)

Single-center, UK [41]

Median, 5 (17, inversa subtype)

Registry analysis, US [30]

Median, 3 (136, severe subtype)

Median, 2 (258, intermediate subtype)

Maximum number of EDs performed per patient, no (N)

14 (14)

Single-center, UK [65]

41 (77)

Single-center, UK [41]

50 (411)

Registry analysis, US [30]

Age at first ED, years (N)

5.5 (77)

Single-center, UK [41]

Gastrostomy tube

Proportion undergoing GT, % (n/N)

58 (33/57)

Single-center, UK [31]

37 (104/283)

Registry analysis, US [23]

33 (27/83)

Survey, International [54]

32 (25/79)

Registry analysis, UK [17]

24 (97/412)

Registry analysis, US [30]

14 (22/157)

Single-center, Germany [55]

8 (2/25e)

Single-center, US [66]

Average GTs performed per patient, median (N)

Median, 1 (412)

Registry analysis, US [30]

Maximum GTs performed per patient, no (N)

10 (412)

Registry analysis, US [30]

Age at first GT, years (N)

6 (6a)

Single-center, UK24

8 (44a)

Single-center UK36`

  1. ED, esophageal dilation; GT, gastrostomy tube; No, number; NR, not reported; RDEB, recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa; UK, United Kingdom; US, United States
  2. aChildren with RDEB