Skip to main content

Prevalence and type of respiratory issues following Tracheo-Oesophageal fistula repair in children and young people: A systematic review

Journal
Paediatric respiratory reviews (Q1)
Published
29 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review of cohort studies
Evidence level
Level 4, Very Low (CEBM 4)
Authors
Ava Machesney, Kieren Lock, Colin Hamilton, Veronica Phillips, Louise Selby, Jessica Bewick
PMID
42875315
DOI
10.1016/j.prrv.2026.09.008

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Pediatric Surgery (paper of the day, 16 October 2026): Systematic review of respiratory outcomes after TOF repair

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF) is a rare congenital anomaly requiring early surgical correction. Despite improved survival, long-term respiratory morbidity remains significant and under-characterised. This review aimed to evaluate the prevalence and nature of respiratory complications following TOF repair in paediatrics. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Six databases were searched (2004-2025). Eligible studies reported respiratory outcomes following complete TOF repair in paediatric populations. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty studies (n = 2,214) were included, predominantly retrospective observational studies with heterogeneous outcome definitions. Respiratory morbidity was consistently reported. The highest pooled prevalence estimates were recurrent cough (57.2%), pneumonia/LRTI (50.08%), and airway malacia (40.62%). Bronchiectasis (11.96%) and atelectasis (20.78%) were less frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory morbidity post-TOF repair is common and multifactorial, highlighting the need for structured, multidisciplinary long-term follow-up and improved standardisation in future research.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.