Multicentre survey on the current surgical management of oesophageal atresia in Belgium and Luxembourg

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Helena Reusens ; ¹ ; ^{Helena.reusens@huderf.be} ; ^{Lucas.Matthyssens@uzgent.be} ; Lucas Matthyssens¹ ; Charlotte Vercauteren ; Katrien van Renterghem ; ; the members of the Belgian Association of Paediatric Surgery (BELAPS)²
• 关键词：Oesophageal atresia ; Tracheoesophageal fistula ; Questionnaire ; Survey ; Practice
• 刊名：Journal of Pediatric Surgery
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：February 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：52
• 期：2
• 页码：239-246
• 全文大小：2302 K
• 卷排序：52

文摘

The surgical management of oesophageal atresia (OA) differs between pediatric surgical teams without consensus. We aimed to describe the current practice of OA treatment in Belgium and Luxembourg and compare this to the literature.Materials and methodsA questionnaire was created and sent to all 18 hospitals (14 pediatric surgical units) performing OA surgery in Belgium and Luxembourg. The results were compared to the literature.ResultsMost units treat an average of 2–5 OA + TOF (71%) and ≤ 1 pure OA (pOA) per year (86%). The preferred surgical approach for OA + TOF is thoracotomy (86%), mostly extra-pleural (75%). Thoracoscopic OA repair is performed in 21%. All centers perform an end-to-end anastomosis (interrupted sutures), and all leave a transanastomotic tube. A chest drain is routinely used in 8 units (57%). In pOA the preferred surgical approach is gastrostomy formation with delayed primary anastomosis (77%). The timing for delayed anastomosis is 2 to 24 months. Intra-operative lengthening is mostly attempted with Foker technique (46%). If oesophageal replacement is needed, gastric interposition is mostly used (75%). A postoperative contrast study is routinely performed in 86% for OA + TOF and in 100% for pOA. Anti-reflux medication is routinely prescribed by all units but one.ConclusionThere are still many differences and controversies in the perioperative management of OA. Part of this is based on habits and is difficult to change without scientific evidence. There is a need for prospective (inter)national registries to further identify the existing differences, leading to a more widely accepted consensus.Level of Evidence: Level III.