A Sustainable and Scalable Multidisciplinary Airway Teaching Mission: The Operation Airway 10-Year Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To address whether a multidisciplinary team of pediatric otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, pediatric intensivists, speech-language pathologists, and nurses can achieve safe and sustainable surgical outcomes in low-resourced settings when conducting a pediatric airway surgical teaching mission that features a program of progressive autonomy. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive case series with chart review. SETTING: This study reviews 14 consecutive missions from 2010 to 2019 in Ecuador, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic. METHODS: Demographic data, diagnostic and operative details, and operative outcomes were collected. A country's program met graduation criteria if its multidisciplinary team developed the ability to autonomously manage the preoperative huddle, operating room discussion and setup, operative procedure, and postoperative multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care unit and floor care decision making. This was assessed by direct observation and assessment of surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 135 procedures were performed on 90 patients in Ecuador (n = 24), the Dominican Republic (n = 51), and El Salvador (n = 39). Five patients required transport to the United States to receive quaternary-level care. Thirty-six laryngotracheal reconstructions were completed: 6 single-stage, 12 one-and-a-half-stage, and 18 double-stage cases. We achieved a decannulation rate of 82%. Two programs (Ecuador and the Dominican Republic) met graduation criteria and have become self-sufficient. No mortalities were recorded. CONCLUSION: This is the largest longitudinal description of an airway reconstruction teaching mission in low- and middle-income countries. Airway reconstruction can be safe and effective in low-resourced settings with a thoughtful multidisciplinary team led by local champions.

The diagnostic role of triple endoscopy in pediatric patients with chronic cough.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Multi-disciplinary aero-digestive centers provide high quality health care through improved outcomes and treatment costs over separate sub specialty clinics. These outcomes are often the result of a common investigative tool known as triple endoscopy: a rigid bronchoscopy performed by an otolaryngologist, flexible bronchoscopy and lavage obtained by a pulmonologist, and an endoscopy with guided biopsies performed by a gastroenterologist. Combining such procedures into one 'triple endoscopy' allows for diagnoses which otherwise might have been missed with just one procedure. The goal of our study was to describe the efficacy of the triple endoscopy procedure in diagnosing recalcitrant aero-digestive conditions, specifically chronic cough. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review METHODS: Multiple charts from children who underwent the triple endoscopy for chronic cough were retrospectively reviewed from 2005 and 2017. Complete data from the triple procedure was gathered on 243 patients, including findings by sub specialty (otolaryngology, pulmonology, and gastroenterology). RESULTS: Of the 243 patients with complete data who underwent triple endoscopy, 203 (83.5%) children had at least one positive finding. Of these children, 101 (41.5%) had one specialty specific diagnosis, and 102 (42%) had multiple cross specialty diagnoses. When describing the diagnoses, 63 children had gastro esophageal reflux (GER), 14 had eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 118 had tracheomalacia, 54 had laryngeal clefts, and 102 children had positive bronchoalveolar lavages. Outcome data was available on 226 patients (93%), of these patients, 188 patients had a diagnosis from the triple scope. Of those patients with a diagnosis and outcome data, 144 (76.6%) children had an improved outcome as a result of a treatment plan targeting that diagnosis, while 16 of the 37 patients without a diagnosis improved. This difference was significant by chi square analysis (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The triple scope procedure is a useful investigative tool for patients with recalcitrant aero-digestive complaints like chronic cough. In particular, triple scope can yield more than one specialty specific diagnosis, normally missed by one procedure. The triple scope also leads to improved parental satisfaction by improved cost and healthcare outcomes.

Assessment of the feeding Swallowing Impact Survey as a quality of life measure in children with laryngeal cleft before and after repair.

OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate the Feeding Swallowing Impact Survey (FSIS), a quality of life instrument, specifically to a subpopulation of children who aspirate due to laryngeal cleft. INTRODUCTION: The FSIS is a recently validated instrument used to describe caregiver quality of life (QOL) in children with aspiration due to various causes. To cross-validate the FSIS specifically to the subpopulation of children who aspirate due to laryngeal cleft, we tested the hypotheses that caregivers would report significant different scores form baseline if their children improved at the one year mark postintervention due to either successful conservative or surgical measures (discriminant validity) and would not report significant differences in their FSIS reporting if there was no change in their child's aspiration at the one year mark post intervention (convergent validity). METHODS: The FSIS was administered to the caregivers of 35 children (19 male, 16 female; age range: 5-79 months) who aspirate secondary to known laryngeal cleft (diagnosed by suspension laryngoscopy and inspection). All children had a baseline VFSS demonstrating aspiration and documenting what feeding plan to follow and caregivers completed the FSIS at this point as well. All children regardless of whether they were treated by conservative or surgical intervention underwent a follow-up VFSS at the one year post-intervention mark and the caregivers completed a FSIS at this time point as well. RESULTS: Among two distinct sub-populations of children who underwent either successful conservative or surgical treatment for their laryngeal cleft and demonstrated improvement at the one year mark (as defined by a VFSS documented decreased need for thickener by at least one consistency or more) and where we hypothesized that FSIS scores would not be significantly different, the caregivers reported no significant differences in FSIS scores cleft repair (mean FSIS scores 2.45 (SD 0.88)/2.1 (SD 0.94); p = 0.28). Moreover, as another test to convergent validity, for children who underwent either unsuccessful conservative treatment (and subsequently went on to need surgery) or who were not successfully surgically treated for their laryngeal cleft and demonstrated no significant improvement at the one year mark (as defined by a VFSS documented decreased need for thickener by at least one consistency or more), the caregivers reported no significant differences in FSIS scores cleft repair (mean FSIS scores 2.8(SD 0.79)/2.5(SD 0.88); p = 0.69). For divergent validity, two distinct sub-populations of children who underwent either successful or not successful surgical treatment for their laryngeal cleft (demonstrated by either improvement or lack of improvement at the one year mark VFSS as defined by a decreased need for thickener by at least one consistency or more) revealed significant differences in caregiver FSIS scores cleft repair (mean FSIS scores 1.38 (SD 0.32); 32.8 (SD 0.79); p=<0.0002). DISCUSSION: This results of this study provide convergent and divergent validity supporting the cross-validation of the FSIS instrument to be utilized as a validated QOL instrument to evaluate children with aspiration specifically due laryngeal cleft as another tool with which to evaluate the outcomes of medical or surgical interventions for this disorder.