DOZ047.64: Sham feeding promotes oral feeding success in long-gap esophageal atresia, even with traction sutures in situ. (24th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hawley, A D; Armstrong, R K; Brooks, J-A E; Pellicano, A; Nightingale, M G; Crameri, J; Teague, W J
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the esophagus. Volume 32(2019)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2019-06-24
• Subjects: long-gap esophageal atresia -- Sham feeding -- traction suture techniques; Esophagus -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.32
• DOI: 10.1093/dote/doz047.64
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-8694

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Sham feeding (SF) and staged repair using traction suture techniques (TST) were both introduced to the management of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGOA) at The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne (RCH) in January 2012. Previous studies report SF to reduce time to full oral feeding (FOF) postdefinitive repair. In our practice, SF is individually tailored, supervised, and involves offering 2–4 feeds daily. This single-center experience describes SF in newborns with LGOA, including those with staged TST prior to definitive repair, and the impact of SF on time to FOF. Methods: Patients admitted 2000–2018 with LGOA were identified from the Nate Myers Oesophageal Atresia Database, RCH. Those with incomplete data or complications preventing oral feeds were excluded. Patients were grouped into two epochs: Group 1 (2000–2011, no SF, no TST) and Group 2 (2012–2018, all offered SF, some TST). Demographics and time to FOF were compared between groups. Parametric data (mean, SD) were analyzed with two sample t-test, and nonparametric data (median, IQR) with Mann–Whitney test; P < 0.05 significant. Ethics approval was obtained (HREC#QA/51247/RCHM-2019). Results: Of 37 LGOA patients, six met exclusion criteria leaving 31 for analysis; Group 1, n = 13; Group 2, n = 18. Groups did not differ in gestation ( P = 0.63), birth weight ( P = 0.91) or time to definitive repair ( P = 0.85). In Group 2, 12/18 had successful SF, including 9 who underwent TST. Three additional patients with TST were unsuccessful with SF. Compared with Group 1, FOF was significantly reduced in those 12 patients with successful SF (median FOF 730 days, IQR 125–1100 vs. median FOF 75 days IQR 56–227; P = 0.03). Small sample size precluded meaningful subgroup analyses of successful versus unsuccessful SF patients. Importantly, no patient aspirated during SF, though one developed oral aversion post-TST and one ceased SF at parental request. Conclusions: In LGOA, successful SF improves time to FOF postdefinitive repair, and was not associated with aspiration in our experience. Further, we report success with SF in patients undergoing staged repair with TST, including following traction suture placement. To our knowledge, this is the first report of SF in LGOA patients during the period between traction suture placement and definitive repair.