Perioperative outcomes in minimally-invasive versus open surgery in infants undergoing repair of congenital anomalies

Abstract

BackgroundThis study compared perioperative outcomes among infants undergoing repair of congenital anomalies using minimally invasive (MIS) versus open surgical approaches. MethodsThe ACS NSQIP Pediatric (2013–2018) was queried for patients undergoing repair of any of the following 9 congenital anomalies: congenital lung lesion (LL), mediastinal mass (MM), congenital malrotation (CM), anorectal malformation (ARM), Hirschsprung disease (HD), congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF), hepatobiliary anomalies (HB), and intestinal atresia (IA). Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) derived from propensity scores were utilized to estimate risk-adjusted association between surgical approach and 30-day outcomes. Results12,871 patients undergoing congenital anomaly repair were included (10,343 open; 2528 MIS). After IPTW, MIS was associated with longer operative time (difference; 95% CI) (16 min; 9–23) and anesthesia time (13 min; 6–21), but less postoperative ventilation days (-1.0 days; -1.4- -0.6) and shorter postoperative length of stay (-1.4 days; -2.4- -0.3). MIS repairs had decreased risk of any surgical complication (risk difference: -6.6%; -9.2- -4.0), including hematologic complications (-7.3%; -8.9- -5.8). There was no significant difference in risk of complication when hematologic complications were excluded (RD -2.3% [-4.7%, 0.1%]). There were no significant differences in the risk of unplanned reoperation (0.4%; -1.5–2.2) or unplanned readmission (0.2%; -1.2–1.5). ConclusionsMIS repair of congenital anomalies is associated with improved perioperative outcomes when compared to open. Additional studies are needed to compare long-term functional and disease-specific outcomes. Mini-abstractIn this propensity-weighted multi-institutional analysis of nine congenital anomalies, minimally invasive surgical repair was associated with improved 30-day outcomes when compared to open surgical repair. Level of evidenceIII.