Affiliation:
1. University of Manitoba, Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
Abstract
Abstract
PURPOSE
Long-term follow-up of congenital duodenal obstruction patients often falls on care providers with little experience of this condition. We performed a systematic review of the long-term outcomes of duodenal obstruction and provide a summary of sequelae care providers should anticipate.
METHODS
In 2022, after registering with PROSPERA, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CNAHL and SCOPUS databases were searched using the title keyword ‘intestinal atresia’. Abstracts were filtered for inclusion if they included the duodenum. Papers of filtered abstracts were included if they reported post-discharge outcomes. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies was used to grade the papers.
RESULTS
Of the 1068 abstracts were screened, 32 papers were reviewed. Eleven studies were included. Thirty additional papers were included after reviewing references, for a total of 41 papers. The average MINORS was 7/16.
CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that children with congenital duodenal obstruction do well in terms of survival, growth and general well-being. Associated cardiac, musculoskeletal and renal anomalies should be ruled-out. Care providers should be aware of anastomotic dysfunction, blind loop syndrome, bowel obstruction and reflux. Reflux may be asymptomatic. Laparoscopic repair does not change long-term outcomes, and associated Trisomy 21 worsens neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference86 articles.
1. Nichol, P.F. and A. Reichstein, Intestinal Atresias, in Fundamentals of Pediatric Surgery. 2011. p. 359–363.
2. Open vs laparoscopic repair of congenital duodenal obstructions: a concurrent series;Spilde TL;J Pediatr Surg,2008
3. Assessment and significance of long-term outcomes in pediatric surgery;IJsselstijn H;Semin Pediatr Surg,2017
4. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews;Ouzzani M;Syst Rev,2016
5. Scherer, R.W. and I.J. Saldanha, How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Syst Rev, 2019. 8(1): p. 264.