International survey on the management of esophageal atresia

IntroductionBecause many aspects of the management of esophageal atresia (EA) are still controversial, we evaluated the practice patterns of this condition across Europe. MethodsA survey was completed by 178 delegates (from 45 [27 European] countries; 88% senior respondents) at the EUPSA-BAPS 2012. ResultsApproximately 66% of respondents work in centers where more than five EA repairs are performed per year. Preoperatively, 81% of respondents request an echocardiogram, and only 43% of respondents routinely perform preoperative bronchoscopy. Approximately 94% of respondents prefer an open approach, which is extrapleural in 71% of respondents. There were no differences in use of thoracoscopy between Europeans (10%) and non-Europeans (11%, p=nonsignificant). Approximately 60% of respondents measure the gap intraoperatively. A transanastomotic tube (90%) and chest drain (69%) are left in situ. Elective paralysis is adopted by 56% of respondents mainly for anastomosis tension (65%). About 72% of respondents routinely request a contrast study on postoperative day 7 (2-14). Approximately 54% of respondents use parenteral nutrition, 40% of respondents start transanastomotic feeds on postoperative day 1, and 89% of respondents start oral feeds after postoperative day 5. Pure EA: 46% of respondents work in centers that repair two or more than two pure EA a year. About 60% of respondents opt for delayed primary anastomosis at 3 months (1-12 months) with gastrostomy formation without esophagostomy. Anastomosis is achieved with open approach by 85% of respondents. About 47% of respondents attempt elongation of esophageal ends via Foker technique (43%) or with serial dilations with bougies (41%). Approximately 67% of respondents always attempt an anastomosis. Gastric interposition is the commonest esophageal substitution. ConclusionMany aspects of EA management are lacking consensus. Minimally invasive repair is still sporadic. We recommend establishment of an EA registry

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: Study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Background Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of nonoperative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed. Methods Multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5–16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (≫ or \u3c48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children. Discussion The APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies. Trial registration number clinicaltrials.gov:NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016