Thoracoscopy or Thoracotomy for Esophageal Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review with meta-analysis compares health- and provider-based outcomes of thoracoscopic to thoracotomy repair of esophageal atresia.

Thoracoscopic surgery has become a routine operation for esophageal atresia repair. However, large studies comparing the safety and efficacy of thoracoscopy to thoracotomy are scarce. Current reviews are obscured with institutional experiences or pool small samples.

PRISMA-compliant search in Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO #CRD42019121862) for original studies comparing thoracoscopy to thoracotomy for esophageal atresia. Quality assessments were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Meta-analyses were presented as odds ratios and standardized mean differences.

This is the largest published meta-analysis, including 17 studies and 1043 patients. Thoracoscopy produce shorter hospital stay [standardized mean differences (SMD) -11.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.49-6.10; P = 0.0440], time until extubation (SMD -3.22; 95% CI 5.93-0.51; P = 0.0198), time until first oral feeding (SMD -2.84; 95% CI 4.62-1.07; P = 0.0017), and fewer musculoskeletal complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.58; P = 0.0133). Thoracoscopy is as safe as thoracotomy regarding leakage (OR -1.92; 95% CI 0.97-3.80; P = 0.0622), stricture formation (OR 2.66; 95% CI 0.86-3.23; P = 0.1339), stricture dilatation (OR 1.90; 95% CI 0.16-3.88; P = 0.0767), and mortality (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.34-4.16; P = 0.7934). However, thoracoscopy take longer (SMD +27.69; 95% CI 12.06-43.32; P = 0.0005) and necessitate more antireflux surgery (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.06-4.24; P = 0.0343).

Thoracoscopy is effective and safe, with similar or better outcomes than thoracotomy for patients and providers. The only significant drawback is the need for antireflux surgery in the first years of life. Comparative randomized long-term studies are needed.