Infants with esophageal atresia and right aortic arch: Characteristics and outcomes from the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium

PURPOSE

Right sided aortic arch (RAA) is a rare anatomic finding in infants with esophageal atresia with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF). In the presence of RAA, significant controversy exists regarding optimal side for thoracotomy in repair of the EA/TEF. The purpose of this study was to characterize the incidence, demographics, surgical approach, and outcomes of patients with RAA and EA/TEF.

METHODS

A multi-institutional, IRB approved, retrospective cohort study of infants with EA/TEF treated at 11 children's hospitals in the United States over a 5-year period (2009 to 2014) was performed. All patients had a minimum of one-year follow-up.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 396 infants with esophageal atresia, 20 (5%) had RAA, with 18 having EA with a distal TEF and 2 with pure EA. Compared to infants with left sided arch (LAA), RAA infants had a lower median birth weight, (1.96 kg (IQR 1.54-2.65) vs. 2.57 kg (2.00-3.03), p = 0.01), earlier gestational age (34.5 weeks (IQR 32-37) vs. 37 weeks (35-39), p = 0.01), and a higher incidence of congenital heart disease (90% vs. 32%, p < 0.0001). The most common cardiac lesions in the RAA group were ventricular septal defect (7), tetralogy of Fallot (7) and vascular ring (5). Seventeen infants with RAA underwent successful EA repair, 12 (71%) via right thoracotomy and 5 (29%) through left thoracotomy. Anastomotic strictures trended toward a difference in RAA patients undergoing right thoracotomy for primary repair of their EA/TEF compared to left thoracotomy (50% vs. 0%, p = 0.1). Side of thoracotomy in RAA patients undergoing EA/TEF repair was not significantly associated with mortality, anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, recurrent fistula, or esophageal dehiscence (all p > 0.29).

CONCLUSION

RAA in infants with EA/TEF is rare with an incidence of 5%. Compared to infants with EA/TEF and LAA, infants with EA/TEF and RAA are more severely ill with lower birth weight and higher rates of prematurity and complex congenital heart disease. In neonates with RAA, surgical repair of the EA/TEF is technically feasible via thoracotomy from either chest. A higher incidence of anastomotic strictures may occur with a right-sided approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Perioperative management and outcomes of esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF) is a rare congenital anomaly lacking contemporary data detailing patient demographics, medical/surgical management and outcomes. Substantial variation in the care of infants with EA/TEF may affect both short- and long-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to characterize the demographics, management strategies and outcomes in a contemporary multi-institutional cohort of infants diagnosed with EA/TEF to identify potential areas for standardization of care.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of infants with EA/TEF treated at 11 children's hospitals between 2009 and 2014 was performed. Over the 5year period, 396 cases were identified in the 11 centers (7±5 per center per year). All infants with a diagnosis of EA/TEF made within 30days of life who had surgical repair of their defect defined as esophageal reconstruction with or without ligation of TEF within the first six months of life were included. Demographic, operative, and outcome data were collected and analyzed to detect associations between variables.

RESULTS

Prenatal suspicion or diagnosis of EA/TEF was present in 53 (13%). The most common anatomy was proximal EA with distal TEF (n=335; 85%) followed by pure EA (n=27; 7%). Clinically significant congenital heart disease (CHD) was present in 137 (35%). Mortality was 7.5% and significantly associated with CHD (p<0.0001). Postoperative morbidity occurred in 62% of the population, including 165 (42%) cases with anastomotic stricture requiring intervention, anastomotic leak in 89 (23%), vocal cord paresis/paralysis in 26 (7%), recurrent fistula in 19 (5%), and anastomotic dehiscence in 9 (2%). Substantial variation in practice across our institutions existed: bronchoscopy prior to repair was performed in 64% of cases (range: 0%-100%); proximal pouch contrast study in 21% (0%-69%); use of interposing material between the esophageal and tracheal suture lines in 38% (0%-69%); perioperative antibiotics ≥24h in 69% (36%-97%); and transanastomotic tubes in 73% (21%-100%).

CONCLUSION

Contemporary treatment of EA/TEF is characterized by substantial variation in perioperative management and considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. Future studies are planned to establish best practices and clinical care guidelines for infants with EA/TEF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Type of study: Treatment study. Level IV.

The Relationship of Endoscopic Proficiency to Educational Expense for Virtual Reality Simulator Training Amongst Surgical Trainees

With the introduction of Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery™, training methods in flexible endoscopy are being augmented with simulation-based curricula. The investment for virtual reality simulators warrants further research into its training advantage. Trainees were randomized into bedside or simulator training groups (BED vs SIM). SIM participated in a proficiency-based virtual reality curriculum. Trainees’ endoscopic skills were rated using the Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) in the patient care setting. The number of cases to reach 90 per cent of the maximum GAGES score and calculated costs of training were compared. Nineteen residents participated in the study. There was no difference in the average number of cases required to achieve 90 per cent of the maximum GAGES score for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 13 (SIM) versus11 (BED) ( P = 0.63), or colonoscopy 21 (SIM) versus 4 (BED) ( P = 0.34). The average per case cost of training for esophagogastroduodenoscopy was $35.98 (SIM) versus $39.71 (BED) ( P = 0.50), not including the depreciation costs associated with the simulator ($715.00 per resident over six years). Use of a simulator appeared to increase the cost of training without accelerating the learning curve or decreasing faculty time spent in instruction. The importance of simulation in endoscopy training will be predicated on more cost-effective simulators.