Download PDF
Eur J Pediatr Surg 2014; 24(01): 014-019
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1350060
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Thoracoscopic Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: What is the Evidence?

Carmen Dingemann
1   Center of Pediatric Surgery, Hannover Medical School and Bult Children's Hospital, Hannover, Germany
,
Benno Ure
1   Center of Pediatric Surgery, Hannover Medical School and Bult Children's Hospital, Hannover, Germany
,
Jens Dingemann
1   Center of Pediatric Surgery, Hannover Medical School and Bult Children's Hospital, Hannover, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

16 May 2013

09 June 2013

Publication Date:
12 July 2013 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has gained enormous acceptance among pediatric surgeons. However, most studies on advantages of VATS do not reach a high level of evidence. According to a recent classification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), studies can be classified into Levels 1 to 5 in order of descending quality. We aimed to identify comparative studies investigating VATS versus open procedures in pediatric surgery and to classify publications according to the CEBM criteria.

Materials and Methods Systematic review of comparative studies were identified using PubMed. Only studies published in English, comparing pediatric VATS with the corresponding open operation were included. End points were advantages and disadvantages of VATS as compared with the open procedure. Levels of evidence were determined using the recent CEBM criteria.

Results A total of 3 meta-analysis (MA) and 18 retrospective comparative studies (RCS) investigating 5 different VATS procedures (repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia [CDH], repair of esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF), lung resection, treatment of pneumothorax, and resection of neuroblastoma) were included in this study. No studies of CEBM Level 1 or Level 2 were identified. All studies were classified as CEBM Level 3. The advantages of VATS were less postoperative pain (CDH repair, EA/TEF repair, and pneumothorax repair), shorter hospital stay (CDH repair, EA/TEF repair, lung resection, and pneumothorax), shorter time of ventilation and lower Pco 2 (CDH repair), shorter duration of chest drain (lung resection), and less blood loss (resection of neuroblastoma). However, disadvantages such as higher recurrence rates (CDH repair), higher Pco 2 (EA/TEF repair), and longer operative times (CDH and EA/TEF repair) were also identified.

Conclusion Only RCS on pediatric VATS are available. Therefore, the best available evidence is Level 3. Randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the corresponding open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence.

Keywords

VATS - thoracoscopy - pediatric - evidence-based medicine
 

  • References

  • 1 Blinman T, Ponsky T. Pediatric minimally invasive surgery: laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in infants and children. Pediatrics 2012; 130 (3) 539-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kuebler JF, Ure BM. Minimally invasive surgery in the neonate. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 16 (3) 151-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lawal TA, Gosemann JH, Kuebler JF, Glüer S, Ure BM. Thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy improves midterm musculoskeletal status and cosmesis in infants and children. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87 (1) 224-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ure B. Enthusiasm, evidence and ethics: the triple E of minimally invasive pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48 (1) 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dingemann J, Ure BM. Systematic Review of Level 1 Evidence for Laparoscopic Pediatric Surgery: Do Our Procedures Comply with the Requirements of Evidence-Based Medicine?. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2013;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. Levels of Evidence (March 2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lansdale N, Alam S, Losty PD, Jesudason EC. Neonatal endosurgical congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 252 (1) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Szavay PO, Obermayr F, Maas C, Luenig H, Blumenstock G, Fuchs J. Perioperative outcome of patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia undergoing open versus minimally invasive surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22 (3) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tsao K, Lally PA, Lally KP. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Study Group. Minimally invasive repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (6) 1158-1164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gander JW, Fisher JC, Gross ER , et al. Early recurrence of congenital diaphragmatic hernia is higher after thoracoscopic than open repair: a single institutional study. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (7) 1303-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lao OB, Crouthamel MR, Goldin AB, Sawin RS, Waldhausen JH, Kim SS. Thoracoscopic repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in infancy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2010; 20 (3) 271-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cho SD, Krishnaswami S, Mckee JC, Zallen G, Silen ML, Bliss DW. Analysis of 29 consecutive thoracoscopic repairs of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in neonates compared to historical controls. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44 (1) 80-86 , discussion 86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gourlay DM, Cassidy LD, Sato TT, Lal DR, Arca MJ. Beyond feasibility: a comparison of newborns undergoing thoracoscopic and open repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernias. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44 (9) 1702-1707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Borruto FA, Impellizzeri P, Montalto AS , et al. Thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy for esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula repair: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2012; 22 (6) 415-419
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Szavay PO, Zundel S, Blumenstock G , et al. Perioperative outcome of patients with esophageal atresia and tracheo-esophageal fistula undergoing open versus thoracoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011; 21 (5) 439-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Al Tokhais T, Zamakhshary M, Aldekhayel S , et al. Thoracoscopic repair of tracheoesophageal fistulas: a case-control matched study. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43 (5) 805-809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lugo B, Malhotra A, Guner Y, Nguyen T, Ford H, Nguyen NX. Thoracoscopic versus open repair of tracheoesophageal fistula and esophageal atresia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008; 18 (5) 753-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nasr A, Bass J. Thoracoscopic vs open resection of congenital lung lesions: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 2012; 47 (5) 857-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rahman N, Lakhoo K. Comparison between open and thoracoscopic resection of congenital lung lesions. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44 (2) 333-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vu LT, Farmer DL, Nobuhara KK, Miniati D, Lee H. Thoracoscopic versus open resection for congenital cystic adenomatoid malformations of the lung. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43 (1) 35-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Diamond IR, Herrera P, Langer JC, Kim PC. Thoracoscopic versus open resection of congenital lung lesions: a case-matched study. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42 (6) 1057-1061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tölg C, Abelin K, Laudenbach V , et al. Open vs thorascopic surgical management of bronchogenic cysts. Surg Endosc 2005; 19 (1) 77-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bratu I, Laberge JM, Flageole H, Bouchard S. Foregut duplications: is there an advantage to thoracoscopic resection?. J Pediatr Surg 2005; 40 (1) 138-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bonnard A, Malbezin S, Ferkdadji L, Luton D, Aigrain Y, de Lagauise P. Pulmonary sequestration children: is the thoracoscopic approach a good option?. Surg Endosc 2004; 18 (9) 1364-1367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Butterworth SA, Blair GK, LeBlanc JG, Skarsgard ED. An open and shut case for early VATS treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children. Can J Surg 2007; 50 (3) 171-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Malek MM, Mollen KP, Kane TD, Shah SR, Irwin C. Thoracic neuroblastoma: a retrospective review of our institutional experience with comparison of the thoracoscopic and open approaches to resection. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45 (8) 1622-1626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Petty JK, Bensard DD, Partrick DA, Hendrickson RJ, Albano EA, Karrer FM. Resection of neurogenic tumors in children: is thoracoscopy superior to thoracotomy?. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203 (5) 699-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bishay M, Giacomello L, Retrosi G , et al. Decreased cerebral oxygen saturation during thoracoscopic repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia and esophageal atresia in infants. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (1) 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bishay M, Giacomello L, Retrosi G , et al. Hypercapnia and Acidosis During Open and Thoracoscopic Repair of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia and Esophageal Atresia: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 2013; ; [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ostlie DJ, St Peter SD. The current state of evidence-based pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45 (10) 1940-1946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312 (7023) 71-72
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Dingemann C, Zoeller C, Ure B. Thoracoscopic repair of oesophageal atresia: results of a selective approach. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2013; 23 (1) 14-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar