Thoracoscopy vs. thoracotomy for the repair of esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Esophageal atresia (EA) and tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) require emergency surgery in the neonatal period to prevent aspiration and respiratory compromise. Surgery was once exclusively performed via thoracotomy; however, there has been a push to correct this anomaly thoracoscopically. In this study, we compare intra- and post-operative outcomes of both techniques. A systematic review and meta-analyses was performed. A search strategy was developed in consultation with a librarian which was executed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception until January 2017. Two independent researchers screened eligible articles at title and abstract level. Full texts of potentially relevant articles were then screened again. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. 48 articles were included. A meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference between thoracoscopy and thoracotomy in our primary outcome of total complication rate (OR 0.98, [0.29, 3.24], p = 0.97). Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in anastomotic leak rates (OR 1.55, [0.72, 3.34], p = 0.26), formation of esophageal strictures following anastomoses that required one or more dilations (OR 1.92, [0.93, 3.98], p = 0.08), need for fundoplication following EA repair (OR 1.22, [0.39, 3.75], p = 0.73)-with the exception of operative time (MD 30.68, [4.35, 57.01], p = 0.02). Considering results from thoracoscopy alone, overall mortality in patients was low at 3.2% and in most cases was due to an associated anomaly rather than EA repair. Repair of EA/TEF is safe, with no statistically significant differences in morbidity when compared with an open approach.Level of evidence 3a systematic review of case-control studies.

Management of long gap esophageal atresia: A systematic review and evidence-based guidelines from the APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee

BACKGROUND

Treatment of the neonate with long gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) is one of the most challenging scenarios facing pediatric surgeons today. Contributing to this challenge is the variability in case definition, multiple approaches to management, and heterogeneity of the reported outcomes. This necessitates a clear summary of existing evidence and delineation of treatment controversies.

METHODS

The American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee drafted four consensus-based questions regarding LGEA. These questions concerned the definition and determination of LGEA, the optimal method of surgical management, expected long-term outcomes, and novel therapeutic techniques. A comprehensive search strategy was crafted and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized to identify, review and report salient articles.

RESULTS

More than 3000 publications were reviewed, with 178 influencing final recommendations. In total, 18 recommendations are provided, primarily based on level 4-5 evidence. These recommendations provide detailed descriptions of the definition of LGEA, treatment techniques, outcomes and future directions of research.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supporting best practices for LGEA is currently low quality. This review provides best recommendations based on a critical evaluation of the available literature. Based on the lack of strong evidence, prospective and comparative research is clearly needed.

TYPE OF STUDY

Treatment study, prognosis study and study of diagnostic test.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-V.