Evidence Hub

Respiratory Morbidity After Repair of Type C Esophageal Atresia with Tracheoesophageal Fistula: A Pediatric Case Series

Cristiana Sophia Mihordea, T. Neagu, Daniela Pop, O. Mitrașca, Anca-Valina Gîngă, Edita-Gabriela Ichim, Valentina Sas, Sorin Claudiu Man et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2026

Abstract

Background: Esophageal atresia (EA) is a rare congenital malformation of the foregut, most commonly presenting in association with tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF). Advances in neonatal surgical techniques and intensive care have significantly improved survival rates over recent decades. However, short- and long-term respiratory morbidity remains prevalent, substantially impacting patients’ quality of life. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center case series of pediatric patients with repaired EA, with emphasis on the spectrum of pulmonary complications and their clinical management. Six patients with repaired type C EA with TEF and associated respiratory complications were included. All patients were admitted between 2018 and 2026 to the Third Pediatric Clinic, Clinical Hospital for Pediatric Emergencies, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, for the management of respiratory pathology. Results: Tracheomalacia was identified in all six patients, and each had experienced at least one episode of lower respiratory tract infection. Reactive airway disease meeting diagnostic criteria for asthma was documented in two patients. One case raised clinical suspicion for a residual or recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula, warranting further diagnostic workup. Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) was present in all patients. Protein-energy malnutrition was identified in two patients (30% of the cohort). Conclusions: Surgically repaired EA is frequently associated with considerable chronic respiratory and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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