**9. Clinical outcomes**

When analyzing the results on *patients characteristics* it does not appear that there is a difference in the selection of patients in favour of any of the procedures. The gestational age, birth weight and associated malformations were similar to data recorded in open repair.

There is a wide variety between reports when focusing on post-operative results and complications. Consistent differences are lacking when compared with results reported for open thoracotomies as is seen in Table 1 and 2. The biggest problem however is the definition of a complication in these cases like anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stricture. For example esophagrams are not made routinely everywhere. Therefore, a difference in the incidence of esophageal strictures is likely to be present due to the difference in classification and not due to an incidence of occurrence of anastomotic strictures.

Also the follow-up data on MAS repair of EA-TEF is scarce, but again, they do not indicate that the incidence of *gastro-oesophageal reflux (GER)* and GER requiring anti-reflux surgery is different from that in patients who had open repairs of the esophageal atresia with TEF. Kawahara 8et al studied the influence of MAS on esophageal motor function and gastroesophageal reflux in 7 patients in comparison to 10 patients who had an open repair. Manometry and 24-hours pH monitoring did not demonstrate any differences between MAS and open repair.

There is only one paper 11 mentioning the consequences of *tracheomalacia* requiring aortopexy. There seem to be no differences between MAS and studies after open repair.
