Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The optimal method to repair gastroschisis defects continues to be debated. The two primary methods are immediate closure (IC) or silo placement (SP). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between each approach using a multicenter retrospective analysis. We hypothesized that patients undergoing SP for ≤5 days would have largely equivalent outcomes compared to IC patients. METHODS: Gastroschisis patient data were collected over a 7-year period. The cohort was separated into IC and SP groups. The SP group was further stratified based on time to closure (≤5 days, 6-10 days, >10 days). Characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression was also performed. RESULTS: 566 neonates with gastroschisis were identified including 224 patients in the IC group and 337 patients in the SP group. Among SP patients, 130 were closed within 5 days, 140 in 6-10 days, and 57 in >10 days. There were no significant differences in mortality, sepsis, readmission, or days to full enteral feeds between IC patients and SP patients who had a silo ≤5 days. IC patients had a significantly higher incidence of ventral hernias. Multivariate analysis revealed time to closure as a significant independent predictor of length of stay, ventilator duration, time to full enteral feeds, and TPN duration. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show largely equivalent outcomes between patients who undergo immediate closure and those who have silos ≤5 days. We propose that closure within 5 days avoids many of the risks commonly attributed to delay in closure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II retrospective study.