Endoscopic repair of tracheoesophageal fistulas: A contemporary multi-institutional case series and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recurrent and primary tracheoesophageal fistulas (TEFs) are a challenging surgical pathology to treat, as standard open surgical approaches are associated with high morbidity and mortality. As such, endoscopic modalities have gained interest as an alluring alternative, yet variable success rates have been reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary update of the literature and describe our institutional experience with the bronchoscopic obliteration of recurrent and primary TEFs. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all pediatric patients having undergone endoscopic TEF repair at two pediatric academic centers in Montreal, Canada and Lille, France between January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: 28 patients with TEFs (20 recurrent, 8 primary) underwent a total of 48 endoscopic procedures. TEF repair was performed under endoscopic guidance using various combinations of techniques, including fistula de-epithelialization (endoscopic brush, thulium laser, trichloroacetic acid-soaked pledgets or electrocautery), tissue adhesives, submucosal augmentation, esophageal clip and stenting. Successful closure was achieved in 16 patients (57 %), while 12 (43 %) required eventual open or thoracoscopic repair. The mean number of endoscopic procedures was 1.7. There were no major treatment-related complications such as pneumothorax, mediastinitis or death (mean follow-up 50.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic repair of recurrent or primary TEFs is a valuable component of our therapeutic armamentarium and may contribute to decreased surgical morbidity in this complex patient population. Families should be counselled that endoscopic results may be more modest than with open or thoracoscopic approaches, and multiple procedures may be required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".