30-Day Outcomes Following Esophageal Replacement in Children: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Pediatric Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The optimal method of esophageal replacement remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate 30-d outcomes of children in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Pediatric (NSQIP-P) database who underwent esophageal replacement from 2012 to 2018.

METHODS

Demographics, comorbidities, and procedural technique was identified in NSQIP-P and reviewed. Thirty-day outcomes were assessed and stratified by gastric pull-up or tube interposition versus small bowel or colonic interposition. Categorical and continuous variables were assessed by Pearson's chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to estimate the effects of procedure technique and clinical risk factors on patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 99 cases of esophageal replacement included, 52 (52.5%) utilized a gastric conduit, whereas 47 (47.5%) involved small bowel/colonic esophageal interposition. Overall risk of complications was 52.5%, the most common of which were perioperative transfusion (30.3%), surgical site infection (11.1%), and sepsis (9.1%). Risk of unplanned reoperation was 17.2%, and risk of mortality was 3.0%. Risk for complications, reoperation, and readmission did not differ significantly between those who underwent gastric esophageal replacement and those who underwent small bowel or colonic interposition. Median operative time was shorter in the gastric esophageal replacement group (5.2 versus 8.1 h, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Among children in NSQIP-P who underwent esophageal replacement from 2012 to 2018, the risk of 30-d complications, unplanned reoperation, and mortality was relatively frequent and was similar across operative techniques. Opportunities exist to improve preoperative optimization, utilization of blood transfusion services, and infectious complications in the perioperative period irrespective of operative technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.