Evidence Hub

Gastro-Esophageal Reflux in Esophageal Atresia Patients Remains a Challenge: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Alexander Sterlin, Hanna Garnier, Gabriela Vallejo, Joana Monteiro, J. C. Moreno-Alfonso, Hilmican Ulman, G. Riccipetitoni, M. Gazzaneo

European journal of pediatric surgery, 2025

5,613 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Objective Although international guidelines address the management of esophageal atresia (EA), the optimal approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in this population remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the current management of GERD in children after EA repair, reporting the prevalence of GERD, indications, and effectiveness of medical and surgical therapies. Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science. Studies involving patients under 18 years old with GERD following EA repair were included. Data were extracted on incidence, diagnostic approach, medical and surgical management, and outcomes. Results Out of 1,612 articles, 49 (5,613 patients) were included. Reporting diagnostic modality, pH-impedance was most frequently used. The pooled GERD incidence was 36.7% overall and 58.1% in type A/B EA. Postoperative anti-reflux medication was reported in 88% of patients; 53.8% of children receiving medical therapy subsequently required further procedures (anti-reflux surgery [ARS], feeding stoma, or total esophago-gastric dissociation). ARS was more common in type A/B than in type C/D cohorts. Resolution of symptoms after ARS was reported in 74.5% of patients. Complications following ARS occurred in 28.3%, with a 14.9% rate of redo fundoplication,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,613 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free