Robotic Versus Thoracoscopy Versus Thoracotomy Repair for Congenital Esophageal Atresia (NCT06208449) | Clinical Trial Compass
UnknownNot Applicable
Robotic Versus Thoracoscopy Versus Thoracotomy Repair for Congenital Esophageal Atresia
China150 participantsStarted 2021-01-15
Plain-language summary
Thoracotomy repair has long been considered the gold standard for the repair of esophageal atresia but is associated with potential musculoskeletal complications which may result in long term morbidity for the patient. thoracoscopy repair offers better visualization of the posterior mediastinal structures, while limiting the surgical trauma. However, studies have shown that the incidence of anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stricture in thoracoscopic repair is not significantly lower than thoracostomy repair. Robotic repair had shorter anastomotic time, lower incidence of anastomotic leakage and stricture, and lower unplanned readmission rate than the thoracotomy repair. However, there were no randomized controlled trials to verify the effectiveness of three procedures. The objection was to compare the difference between robotic repair and thoracoscopic repair, and thoracotomy repair in intraoperative parameters and postoperative complications in EA neonates.
Who can participate
Age range
1 Month
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion Criteria:
* Type C EA neonates with short esophageal gap length (less than 3 vertebral bodies), mini-invasive repair, and a successful one-stage anastomosis were included.
Exclusion Criteria:
* Patients with respiratory distress requiring assisted ventilation, long esophageal gap length, multistage surgery, other types EA (type A/B/D/E) or surgical contraindications were excluded.
Gestational age less than 35 weeks and birth weight less than 2kg were excluded.
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.