L Agrawal1, C S Beardsmore, U M MacFadyen. 1. Department of Child Health, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, PO Box 65, Leicester LE2 7LX, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the relation between respiratory function in infancy and at school age in children who have undergone oesophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula repair, and assess the value of infant respiratory function testing; and to examine the effect of bronchodilators. METHOD: Fourteen children (6 girls, and 8 boys) who had undergone respiratory function testing in infancy were retested at school age (7-12 years). Measurements included lung volume, airways resistance, peak flow, and spirometry. Clinical problems were investigated by questionnaire. Twelve children had repeat measurements after taking salbutamol. RESULTS: Predominant complaints were non-productive cough and dysphagia, but even those children with major problems in infancy reported few restrictions at school or in sport or social activities. Respiratory function and clinical findings at school age appeared unrelated to status in infancy, such that even the patients with severe tracheomalacia requiring aortopexy did not have lung function testing suggestive of malacia at school age. Most patients showed a restrictive pattern of lung volume which would appear to result from reduced lung growth after surgery rather than being a concomitant feature of the primary congenital abnormality. Although six children reported wheeze and four had a diagnosis of asthma, only one responded to salbutamol. This suggests that a tendency to attribute all lower respiratory symptoms to asthma may have led to an overdiagnosis of this condition in this patient group. CONCLUSION: Respiratory function testing in infancy is of limited value in medium term prognosis, but may aid management of contemporary clinical signs. In children respiratory function testing is valuable in assessing suspected asthma and effects of bronchodilators.
AIM: To determine the relation between respiratory function in infancy and at school age in children who have undergone oesophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula repair, and assess the value of infant respiratory function testing; and to examine the effect of bronchodilators. METHOD: Fourteen children (6 girls, and 8 boys) who had undergone respiratory function testing in infancy were retested at school age (7-12 years). Measurements included lung volume, airways resistance, peak flow, and spirometry. Clinical problems were investigated by questionnaire. Twelve children had repeat measurements after taking salbutamol. RESULTS: Predominant complaints were non-productive cough and dysphagia, but even those children with major problems in infancy reported few restrictions at school or in sport or social activities. Respiratory function and clinical findings at school age appeared unrelated to status in infancy, such that even the patients with severe tracheomalacia requiring aortopexy did not have lung function testing suggestive of malacia at school age. Most patients showed a restrictive pattern of lung volume which would appear to result from reduced lung growth after surgery rather than being a concomitant feature of the primary congenital abnormality. Although six children reported wheeze and four had a diagnosis of asthma, only one responded to salbutamol. This suggests that a tendency to attribute all lower respiratory symptoms to asthma may have led to an overdiagnosis of this condition in this patient group. CONCLUSION: Respiratory function testing in infancy is of limited value in medium term prognosis, but may aid management of contemporary clinical signs. In children respiratory function testing is valuable in assessing suspected asthma and effects of bronchodilators.