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.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)