Camera-based Endoscopy Allows Spontaneous Breathing Diagnostic Management in Neonates With Tracheoesophageal Fistula

Overview

The investigators aim to compare rigid tracheoscopy versus flexible tracheo-video-endoscopy in neonates requiring diagnostic assessment before undergoing a congenital tracheoesophageal fistula repair.

Tracheoesophageal fistula, with or without esophageal atresia, is a rare congenital malformation which may be included in a wider spectrum of congenital abnormalities (VACTERL: vertebral, anorectal, cardiac, tracheoesophageal, renal and limb abnormalities). This condition presents challenging airway management due to the risk of gastric distension during positive pressure ventilation. ERNICA guidelines suggest that a tracheoscopy should be routinely performed preoperatively to evaluate the fistula position, rule out a double fistula, and identify other tracheal pathology; however, the optimal setting and approach remains controversial. Rigid tracheoscopy, performed in paralyzed neonates, can provide superior visualization of the trachea, but with a risk of gastric distension; moreover, the learning curve is steep. Flexible tracheoscopy using conventional fiberoptic bronchoscopes could allow maintenance of spontaneous breathing, but image quality is poor. New-generation disposable video-endoscopes come equipped with a miniaturized camera that replaces traditional fiberoptic technology, enabling enhanced visualization. The goal of this observational ambispective study is to compare the outcomes of two different airway management approaches in neonates and infants undergoing congenital tracheoesophageal fistula repair: rigid tracheoscopy with flexible video-endoscopy. The main questions the investigators aim to answer are: Is the tracheal flexible video-endoscopy performed in spontaneously breathing neonates effective, regarding optimal tracheal visualization and therefore for accurate diagnosis? Does it allow the successful detection and eventually rigid wire cannulation of the fistula? Are there differences between the two approaches, regarding the procedure length, or the incidence of complications (desaturation, gastric distension, respiratory depression, major cardiopulmonary complications)? Do the two approaches differ in learning curve shape? The investigators will compare a historical cohort of neonates who underwent rigid tracheoscopy with positive pressure ventilation, with a prospective group of neonates that will receive spontaneous breathing flexible tracheoscopy.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (1)

Outcomes

Central Contacts