Quality of life assessment in esophageal atresia patients: a systematic review focusing on long-gap esophageal atresia
jpedsurg.org shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on jpedsurg.org ↗Article · Oct 2019 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
This systematic review of 536 esophageal atresia patients found no significant quality of life differences between long-gap and non-long-gap EA cases, though long-gap patients experienced more gastrointestinal symptoms than healthy controls. The authors caution interpretation due to variable questionnaire methods and response rates across the six included studies.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Background
Children born with esophageal atresia (EA) have inherent abnormalities in esophageal motility which may impact upon patient and family Quality of Life (QoL). Currently, paucity of data exists for long-term outcomes of long-gap EA. We aimed to: (1) summarize QoL tools reported in the literature, focusing upon studies involving long-gap EA patients, and (2) compare QoL for long-gap versus non-long-gap EA patients.
Method
We performed a systematic review of Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid databases (January 1980–May 2018) in accordance with the PRISMA protocol.
Result
Six studies were identified (536 patients total), and 419/536 (78%) patients completed QoL assessment. Response rates ranged from 29% to 100%. Median study size was 86 (range 8–159). Esophageal atresia type was described in 477 patients, and 74/477 (16%) were long-gap. Common assessment tools were Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Compared with healthy individuals, long-gap EA patients suffered more gastrointestinal symptoms. There were no significant differences in QoL outcomes between long-gap and non-long-gap EA patients.
Conclusion
Current literature suggests no significant difference in QoL outcomes between long-gap and non-long-gap EA patients. However, due to questionnaire variability and range of response rates, the data should be interpreted with care.
Level of Evidence
Level II.