Boesch, R. Paul

ABSTRACT Introduction Laryngotracheoesophageal clefts (LTEC) are aspiration‐related lesions often assessed using swallow studies and symptoms like respiratory or feeding difficulties. However, these indicators are unreliable predictors of disease severity. Lung inflammation and injury, though significant concerns, are rarely and inconsistently evaluated or reported. As a result, the correlation between swallow study findings and actual pulmonary disease remains unclear. Methods A retrospective cohort of children with LTEC seen in our Aerodigestive Program between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2023, who underwent videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) or flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) were included. Data collected included clinical history, risk factors, BAL, chest CT, impedance probe, VFSS/FEES findings, and FOIS‐P/I scores at baseline and follow‐up. Results Eight‐two subjects identified. Lung inflammation and bronchiectasis were common and correlated. Clinical factors, impedance probe, and the presence/severity of swallowing abnormalities on VFSS/FEES were not predictive of lung disease. Fifty‐seven patients underwent LTEC repair for a range of indications, only 49% based on CT and/or BAL findings. Of 57 children who had LTEC repair, only 49% were based on CT or BAL findings. LTEC repair was associated with modest improvement feeding and swallowing. Discussion Children with LTEC have a high prevalence of inflammatory lung disease and injury and undergo repair for a variety of reasons. Swallow studies detect functional swallowing issues but do not reliably identify lung disease. Despite this limitation, LTEC repair is linked to improved feeding and swallowing in some patients, though not all benefit.

Introduction: Laryngotracheoesophageal clefts (LTEC) are well-known aspiration-associated lesions. Results of swallow studies, and respiratory, feeding, and swallowing symptoms are commonly used indications for repair, despite being unclear predictors of disease. Although lung inflammation and injury are primary concerns, such findings are uncommonly and inconsistently evaluated and reported and therefore it remains unclear how well swallow studies predict lung disease. Methods: Children seen in our Aerodigestive program 10/1/2012 and 9/30/2023, with a LTEC and a videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) or flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) were included. Data regarding clinical history and risk factors, BAL, chest CT, and impedance probe results were abstracted, along with VFSS/FEES results and functional oral intake scale (FOIS-P/I) at baseline and follow-up. Results: 82 subjects identified. Lung inflammation and bronchiectasis were common and correlated. Clinical factors, impedance probe, and the presence/severity of swallowing abnormalities on VFSS/FEES were not predictive of lung disease. 57 patients underwent LTEC repair for a range of indications, only 49% based on CT and/or BAL findings. LTEC repair was associated with a trend towards improvement feeding and swallowing, yet none of these met statistical significance. Discussion: Children with LTEC have a high prevalence of inflammatory lung disease and injury and undergo repair for a variety of reasons. The insufficient ability of swallow study to identify patients with lung disease suggests that such studies identify functional abnormalities but not a disease state, per se. Nevertheless, LTEC repair is associated with improvements in feeding and swallowing in a subset of patients.

AbstractIntroductionAdvanced diagnostic bronchoscopy includes endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) guided transbronchial lung and lymph node biopsies, CT navigation and robotic bronchoscopy. Interventional bronchoscopy refers to procedures performed for therapeutic purposes such as balloon dilation of the airway, tissue debulking, cryotherapy, removal of foreign bodies and insertion of endobronchial valves [1]. For adult patients, these procedures are standard of care [2, 3]. Despite a lack of formalized training, there are numerous case reports and case series describing the use of advanced diagnostic and interventional bronchoscopy techniques in children. The safety and feasibility of EBUS‐TBNA, cryotherapy techniques, endobronchial valves among other techniques have been demonstrated in these publications [1, 4‐9].MethodsWe sought to better understand the current practices and perspectives on interventional and advanced bronchoscopy among pediatric pulmonologists through surveys sent to pediatric teaching hospitals across the United States.ResultsWe received 43 responses representing 28 programs from 25 states. The highest bronchoscopy procedure volume occurred in the 0‐5 years age group. Among our respondents, 31% self‐identified as a pediatric interventional/advanced bronchoscopist. 79% believe that advanced and interventional training is feasible in pediatric pulmonology and 77% believe it should be offered to pediatric pulmonary fellows.DiscussionThis is the first study to characterize current practices and perspectives regarding advanced diagnostic and interventional bronchoscopy procedures among pediatric pulmonologists in the United States. Pediatric interventional pulmonology (IP) is in its infancy and its beginnings echo those of the adult IP where only certain centers were performing these procedures.

Objectives:Aerodigestive disorders encompass various pathological conditions affecting the lungs, upper airway, and gastrointestinal tract in children. While advanced care has primarily occurred in specialty centers, many children first present to general pediatric gastroenterologists with aerodigestive symptoms necessitating awareness of these conditions. At the 2021 Annual North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition meeting, the aerodigestive Special Interest Group held a full‐day symposium entitled, Pediatric Aerodigestive Medicine: Advancing Collaborative Care of Children with Aerodigestive Disorders. The symposium aimed to underline the significance of a multidisciplinary approach to achieve better outcomes for these complex patients.Methods:The symposium brought together leading experts to highlight the growing aerodigestive field, promote new scientific and therapeutic strategies, share the structure and benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in diagnosing common and rare aerodigestive disorders, and foster multidisciplinary discussion of complex cases while highlighting the range of therapeutic and diagnostic options. In this article, we showcase the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to oropharyngeal dysphagia (OPD), one of the most common aerodigestive conditions, emphasizing the role of a collaborative model.Conclusions:The aerodigestive field has made significant progress and continues to grow due to a unique multidisciplinary, collaborative model of care for these conditions. Despite diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, the multidisciplinary approach has enabled and greatly improved efficient, high‐quality, and evidence‐based care for patients, including those with OPD.

AbstractObjectiveChildren frequently present with chronic cough, recurrent respiratory infections, and dysphagia. These symptoms are poor predictors of significant inflammatory lung disease, such as from chronic aspiration. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is the gold standard for identification of lung infection and airway inflammation but is expensive and requires sedation. Chest X‐rays (CXR) are inexpensive, low‐radiation tests that do not require sedations and can document findings associated with infectious or inflammatory lung disease. The accuracy of CXR to predict or exclude infectious or inflammatory lung disease has not been directly evaluated and is unknown.MethodsRetrospective cohort of all pediatric patients who underwent FFB with BAL within 2 weeks of a CXR. Blinded CXR images reviewed for findings consistent with inflammatory disease by two senior pediatric radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for CXR to identify significant inflammation and/or infection on BAL were calculated.ResultsThree hundred and forty‐four subjects included. Two hundred and sixty‐three had positive CXR (77%), 183 had inflammatory BAL (53%), and 110 had infection (32%). The sensitivity of CXR changes for BAL inflammation, infection, and either inflammation or infection was 84.7, 90.9, and 85.3, respectively. The PPV of CXR was 58.9, 38.0, and 59.7. The NPV of CXR was 65.0, 87.5, and 66.3.ConclusionsAlthough CXR are inexpensive, do not require sedation, and are of low radiation dose, the ability of an entirely normal CXR to exclude active inflammatory or infectious lung disease is limited.

Objectives/HypothesisThis study defines essential data elements to be recorded during an aerodigestive “triple endoscopy” to form the foundation of a standardized multicenter registry and to clearly define measurement of each consensus item.Study DesignModified Delphi process.MethodsModified Delphi consensus with six survey rounds. Twenty‐four expert pediatric otolaryngology, pulmonology, and gastroenterology aerodigestive clinicians from eight large academic pediatric aerodigestive programs formed the Delphi panel. After achieving consensus through the Delphi process, outside validation was performed at 2019 national Aerodigestive Society conference. Consensus, near‐consensus, or exclusion was obtained for each proposed data element. Concordance was then measured between expert panel conclusions and validation group conclusions.ResultsOverall response rate was 94.4%. 73/167 proposed items reached consensus in six domains (flexible bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, microdirect laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies, and esophageal impedance and pH probe). Measurement of all items was defined; classification/grading systems were selected for 11 items. Validation group endorsed importance of 82/167 data items; compared to expert consensus, overall, inclusion, and exclusion concordance rates were 94.5%, 98.7%, and 90.9%.ConclusionTriple endoscopy is a central component of aerodigestive care. This study identifies and defines data elements to be recorded for all triple endoscopy procedures. The list is of usable length, and clear definitions were created for all items, with explicit classification/grading systems selected for 11 items. Face validity was confirmed with an independent multispecialty sample of aerodigestive providers. This consensus provides the foundation for a triple endoscopy registry but also is immediately applicable to standardize clinical documentation in aerodigestive care.Level of Evidence5 Laryngoscope, 132:2251–2258, 2022

ObjectivesDevelop multidisciplinary and international consensus on patient, disease, procedural, and perioperative factors, as well as key outcome measures and complications, to be reported for pediatric airway reconstruction studies.MethodsStandard Delphi methods were applied. Participants proposed items in three categories: 1) patient/disease characteristics, 2) procedural/intraoperative/perioperative factors, and 3) outcome measures and complications. Both general and anatomic site‐specific measures were elicited. Participants also suggested specific operations to be encompassed by this project. We then used iterative ranking and review to develop consensus lists via a priori Delphi consensus criteria.ResultsThirty‐three pediatric airway experts from eight countries in North and South America, Europe, and Australia participated, representing otolaryngology (including International Pediatric Otolaryngology Group members), pulmonology, general surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery. Consensus led to inclusion of 19 operations comprising open expansion, resection, and slide procedures of the larynx, trachea, and bronchi as well as three endoscopic procedures. Consensus was achieved on multiple patient/comorbidity (10), disease/stenosis (7), perioperative‐/intraoperative‐/procedure‐related (16) factors. Consensus was reached on multiple outcome and complication measures, both general and site‐specific (8 general, 13 supraglottic, 15 glottic, 17 subglottic, 8 cervical tracheal, 12 thoracic tracheal). The group was able to clarify how each outcome should be measured, with specific instruments defined where applicable.ConclusionThis consensus statement provides a framework to communicate results consistently and reproducibly, facilitating meta‐analyses, quality improvement, transfer of information, and surgeon self‐assessment. It also clarifies expert opinion on which patient, disease, procedural, and outcome measures may be important to consider in any pediatric airway reconstruction patient.Level of Evidence5 Laryngoscope, 129:244–255, 2019