Short-term and mid-term effects of thoracoscopic repair of esophageal atresia: No anastomotic leaks or conversions to open technique

Use of Staged vs. Primary Repair in Thoracoscopic Esophageal Atresia Repair

INTRODUCTION

Morbidity after thoracoscopic primary repair of esophageal atresia (EA) is still high in many centers. We retrospectively assessed the outcomes of a center-specific standardized approach in a group of newborns with EA that had been classified into one of two surgical management groups.

METHODS

38 consecutive newborns with EA (median birth weight: 2570 g, range: 1020-3880) were treated between 2013 and 2022. The patients were classified into one of two groups: one-stage or multi-stage approach. The decision was based on the patients' general condition, the results of preoperative tests and/or by local conditions during thoracoscopy.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (all with type C EA) underwent primary esophageal anastomosis and 8 patients (21%) underwent multi-stage surgery and delayed anastomosis. The decision to take a multi-stage approach was made in the following cases: hemodynamic instability (n = 3), severely hypoplastic (up to 2 cm) distal esophagus (n = 1), extremely high position of the proximal esophagus (n = 2) and in all patients with type A EA (n = 2). In the multi-stage group, the second-stage procedure was performed after a median of 13 days (range: 7-42). Overall survival for all patients was 89%, with a median follow-up of 4.5 years. We did not note either anastomotic leaks or conversion to the open technique in our cohort.

CONCLUSION

In selected cases, the multi-stage approach can affect patient safety in terms of surgical morbidity. Considering multi-stage correction of EA in advance can positively affect outcomes, especially in terms of lower rates of anastomosis leakage and of conversion to open surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparison of robotic versus thoracoscopic repair for congenital esophageal atresia: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the rapid advancement of robotic surgery across various surgical domains, only cases of robotic repair (RR) for neonates with esophageal atresia (EA) have been reported. Comprehensive studies comparing RR and thoracoscopic repair (TR) are lacking. The authors aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of RR and TR for EA.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study was conducted on 155 EA neonates undergoing RR (79 patients) or TR (76 patients) between August 2020 and February 2023 using propensity score matching. Asymmetric port distribution and step-trocar insertion techniques were applied during RR. Demographics and surgical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, 63 patients (out of 79) in RR group and 63 patients (out of 76) in TR group were included. There were no significant differences in short-term outcomes between two groups, except for longer total operative time (173.81 vs. 160.54 min; P <0.001) and shorter anastomotic time (29.52 vs. 40.21 min; P <0.001) in RR group. Compared with TR group, the RR group had older age at surgery (8.00 vs. 3.00 days; P <0.001), but a comparable pneumonia rate. More importantly, the incidence of anastomotic leakage (4.76 vs. 19.05%, P =0.013), anastomotic stricture (15.87 vs. 31.74%, P =0.036) within 1 year postoperatively, and unplanned readmission (32.26 vs. 60.00%, P =0.030) within 2 years postoperatively were lower in RR group than in TR group.

CONCLUSIONS

RR is a technically safe and effective option for EA patients. This approach delays the age of surgery without increasing respiratory complication rates while reducing the incidence of postoperative anastomotic complications and unplanned readmission.

Thoracoscopic Versus Open Repair for Oesophageal Atresia: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 359 Patients at a Single Center

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to define the effectiveness of thoracoscopic versus open repair of gross type C oesophageal atresia (EA) based on the experience of a single centre over a decade.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who were admitted to Hunan Children's Hospital between January, 2010 and December, 2021 and underwent repair surgery for type C EA.

RESULTS

A total of 359 patients underwent type C EA repair during the study period, of which 142 were completed via an open approach and 217 were attempted via a thoracoscopic approach (seven converted to open surgery). There were no differences in the demographics or comorbidities between the patients of thoracoscopy and thoracotomy (open repair) groups. The median operating time was 109 [90, 133] min in the thoracoscopic surgery group, which was slightly shorter than that in the open repair group (115 [102, 128] min, p = 0.059). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 41 (18.9%) and 35 (24.6%) infants in the thoracoscopic and open surgery groups, respectively (p = 0.241). Thirteen patients (3.6%) died in the hospital without significant differences in the repair approach. With a median follow-up of 23.7 months, 38 (13.6%) participants had one or more anastomotic strictures requiring dilatation, without significant differences in the repair approach (p = 0.994).

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracoscopic repair of congenital EA is safe, and has perioperative and medium-term outcomes similar to those of open surgery. This technique is recommended only in hospitals with experienced teams of endoscopic paediatric surgeons and anaesthesiologists.