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.