A Blockage in a Newborn's Intestine: What Happens Before the Operation, During It, and Fifteen Years Later

Four recent studies follow babies born with congenital duodenal obstruction from the first scan through surgery, feeding, and adolescence

Some babies are born with a blockage in the duodenum, the first part of the small intestine. Milk cannot get through, so the baby needs an operation in the first days of life — and almost every baby who has it now does well. Four recent studies follow this condition through four stages: before birth, in the operating theatre, feeding afterwards, and how the children are doing a decade later.

A condition that used to be a tragedy and is now a treatable problem

Congenital duodenal obstruction affects roughly one baby in every 5,000 to 10,000 born [1],[2]. The blockage happens very early in pregnancy, when the tube that becomes the intestine fails to open up properly. It can take three forms: the duodenum may be completely closed off, there may be a thin web of tissue across the inside, or a ring of pancreas tissue may squeeze the outside of it. Whichever form it takes, the effect is the same — nothing can pass, the stomach fills up, and the baby vomits.

Before surgery for newborns existed, this was fatal. That changed in stages over the twentieth century, and in 1977 surgeons described a particular way of joining the two ends of the duodenum together — a diamond-shaped join — which became the standard operation and still is today [3]. Once babies reliably survived, attention turned to everything around the operation. A study that collected information on every case in the United Kingdom found that although outcomes were good almost everywhere, hospitals differed enormously in how they fed babies afterwards, for reasons that had nothing to do with how sick the babies were [4].

One thing has been known for a long time: this blockage often comes with other things. Down syndrome is present in a substantial minority of babies with it, and heart differences are common too [5],[6]. That is why, when the blockage is spotted on a pregnancy scan, parents are usually offered genetic testing [7]. Until recently, though, surprisingly little had been published about what that testing actually finds when the blockage is looked at on its own rather than lumped in with other bowel problems.

What the scan shows, and what the tests add

The blockage has a distinctive appearance on an ultrasound scan in pregnancy. The stomach and the swollen duodenum above the blockage both fill with fluid and show up as two dark circles side by side — the "double bubble." It is one of the more recognisable signs in fetal medicine.

A hospital in Guangzhou, China, reviewed nine years of its own records, covering 98 pregnancies where a double bubble had been seen between January 2014 and September 2023 [1]. In about seven out of ten, the blockage appeared to be the only problem. Genetic testing found an abnormality in 20 of the 98 (about one in five). Down syndrome was the commonest, in 9 babies (9%), and it was far more likely when the scan had shown something else as well as the blockage — about one in five of those pregnancies, compared with about one in twenty-five where the blockage seemed to be on its own.

What happened next is the part worth knowing about. Genetic results shaped what parents decided almost completely: every pregnancy where a genetic abnormality was found ended in termination, while more than eight in ten of those with a normal result continued [1]. Of the 67 babies born, 65 had the operation and all of them survived — an overall survival rate of 97% for the babies who were born. A small but important detail: five of those babies turned out to have a second blockage further down the intestine that the scan had not shown. That is a reminder that "just the duodenum" before birth is a best estimate, not a certainty, and one reason doctors sometimes suggest an additional scan such as a fetal MRI.

Keyhole surgery: gentler for the baby, slower for the surgeon at first

The operation itself can be done in two ways: through a traditional cut across the upper abdomen, or with keyhole surgery, in which the surgeon works through three small openings using a camera and fine instruments. Keyhole surgery on a newborn who weighs two kilograms is genuinely difficult, and surgeons take time to get good at it.

A surgeon in Daegu, South Korea, published ten years of his own results: 20 babies operated on by keyhole between June 2013 and October 2024, compared with 8 babies who had the traditional open operation at the same hospital in the years before keyhole surgery was introduced there [8]. The keyhole operations took longer — a middle value of about two hours compared with about an hour and twenty minutes. But the babies recovered faster. They started milk feeds after 5 days instead of 9, and reached full feeds after 8 days instead of 13. Complications were no more common.

The most encouraging finding was about the learning curve. Over the decade, the surgeon's operating time dropped from about two and a half hours in the first few cases to under two hours later on. The only time the surgeon had to switch to an open operation was early in the series. Meanwhile, the babies in the first group recovered just as quickly as the babies in the last group. In other words, while a surgeon is learning, the extra time is spent in theatre — it does not come out of the baby's recovery. This fits with larger reviews comparing the two approaches [9], though it is worth remembering this was one surgeon with a small number of patients, and the comparison group came from an earlier time.

The small tube that could get babies feeding sooner

After the blockage is repaired, the newly joined intestine takes a while to start working. During that time the baby needs nutrition. There are two ways to give it. One is a drip into a vein carrying liquid nutrition, which requires a long thin line threaded into a large blood vessel and carries a risk of infection. The other is a very fine tube that the surgeon can thread through the join during the operation so that milk can be dripped directly into the intestine beyond it, starting within a day or two.

Research consistently suggests the small tube gets babies onto milk sooner, reduces the need for drip feeding and the lines that go with it, and costs less [10],[11]. Yet in the UK only about four in ten babies get one, while nearly nine in ten receive drip feeding [4]. Researchers at the University of Southampton set out to understand why, by interviewing 25 doctors, nurses and dietitians from 13 hospitals and then holding three group discussions with 17 more [12].

The answers were human rather than technical. Some clinicians were not confident using the tubes or did not have the right size available. Many were sceptical about the research — and, strikingly, asked for evidence that already exists. Several described a single bad experience, sometimes one they had only heard about, that had put them off tubes permanently; the researchers called these "cortical scars." And units tended to keep doing whatever they already did well, because changing is hard. An earlier survey by the same team had found that only about a third of surgeons thought a tube should always be used, and that surgeons usually made the decision alone [13]. The researchers concluded that the answer is not another study but better sharing of what is already known, along with training that involves the whole team rather than surgeons alone. Notably, parents consulted before the study said they would not want their babies entered into a trial comparing the two methods, because they already believed the tube was better.

If your baby is having this operation, it is entirely reasonable to ask which feeding method the team plans to use and why — and to say that getting your own breast milk into your baby sooner matters to you.

How these children are doing years later

The question most parents actually want answered is what life will be like when their child is ten, or fifteen. A team at Emma Children's Hospital in Amsterdam went looking for an answer [14]. They contacted everyone who had been operated on at their hospital for this condition between 1999 and 2022 and sent a well-established questionnaire about stomach and bowel symptoms [15]. Thirty-three people replied, with an average age of just over 13; seven of them had Down syndrome.

Their overall scores were no different from a large group of healthy children. Almost every area — stomach pain, reflux, nausea, trouble swallowing, worry about eating — came out the same. One thing did differ: constipation was more common in the children who had been operated on, and four of the 33 were taking a laxative. The researchers found this slightly surprising, since the surgery is high up in the digestive system, and they suggest it is worth mentioning to families rather than leaving it to be discovered years later and worried about. Children with Down syndrome reported no more bowel symptoms than the others, which matches earlier research [16], although with only seven of them this particular comparison is not firm.

What all of this adds up to for families

Put the four studies side by side and a clear picture emerges. This is a serious condition that is reliably fixable. The most consequential unknown before birth is not the blockage but whether anything else is present, which is why genetic testing and a careful look at the rest of the baby matter so much. The operation can be done through small openings, with a faster recovery, and a surgeon still learning the technique does not disadvantage the baby. The part of the care that varies most between hospitals — how the baby is fed in the first week or two afterwards — is also the part most open to improvement, and it is a fair thing for parents to ask about. And in the long run, most of these children grow up with digestive health much like anyone else's, with constipation the one thing worth keeping an eye on.

Researchers are now working on larger, multi-hospital studies of the genetic causes, on better comparisons of the two operations done at the same time rather than years apart, and on practical ways to help hospitals adopt the feeding methods the evidence already supports. Longer-term follow-up is also needed — one review found that structured follow-up after discharge is patchy and poorly studied [17]. If you would like to read about related conditions, In[Neo]Sight has clusters on intestinal malrotation and midgut volvulus and on omphalocele from pregnancy to long-term outcome.

References

  1. Lu J, Fu F, Guo F, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and perinatal outcomes of fetuses with congenital duodenal obstruction: a nine-year retrospective study from China. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2026;105(2):268–279. doi:10.1111/aogs.70117 ↩
  2. Best KE, Tennant PWG, Addor MC, et al. Epidemiology of small intestinal atresia in Europe: a register-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood — Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2012;97(5):F353–F358. doi:10.1136/fetalneonatal-2011-300631 ↩
  3. Kimura K, Tsugawa C, Ogawa K, et al. Diamond-shaped anastomosis for congenital duodenal obstruction. Archives of Surgery. 1977;112(10):1262–1263. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1977.01370100116026 ↩
  4. Bethell GS, Long AM, Knight M, Hall NJ. Congenital duodenal obstruction in the UK: a population-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood — Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2020;105(2):178–183. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2019-317085 ↩
  5. Choudhry MS, Rahman N, Boyd P, Lakhoo K. Duodenal atresia: associated anomalies, prenatal diagnosis and outcome. Pediatric Surgery International. 2009;25(8):727–730. doi:10.1007/s00383-009-2406-y ↩
  6. Pijpers AGH, Eeftinck Schattenkerk LD, de Vries R, et al. Cardiac anomalies in children with congenital duodenal obstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Pediatric Surgery International. 2023;39(1):160. doi:10.1007/s00383-023-05449-3 ↩
  7. Bishop JC, McCormick B, Johnson CT, et al. The double bubble sign: duodenal atresia and associated genetic etiologies. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy. 2020;47(2):98–103. doi:10.1159/000500471 ↩
  8. Jung E, Son NH. Laparoscopic management of duodenal atresia: a decade of single surgeon's perspective. Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research. 2026;110(2):127–134. doi:10.4174/astr.2026.110.2.127 ↩
  9. Zhang J, Xu X, Wang X, Zhao L, Lv Y, Chen K. Laparoscopic versus open repair of congenital duodenal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Surgery International. 2022;38(11):1507–1515. doi:10.1007/s00383-022-05209-9 ↩
  10. Bethell GS, Neville JJ, Johnson MJ, Turnbull J, Hall NJ. Congenital duodenal obstruction repair with and without transanastomotic tube feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood — Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2024;109(2):182–188. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2023-325988 ↩
  11. Harwood R, Horwood F, Tafilaj V, Craigie RJ. Transanastomotic tubes reduce the cost of nutritional support in neonates with congenital duodenal obstruction. Pediatric Surgery International. 2019;35(4):457–461. doi:10.1007/s00383-018-4411-5 ↩
  12. Jager A, Turnbull J, Johnson MJ, Hall NJ. Clinicians' post-operative feeding decisions for infants with congenital duodenal obstruction and trans-anastomotic tube usage: a qualitative interview and focus group study. BMC Pediatrics. 2026;26(1):807. doi:10.1186/s12887-026-07310-7 ↩
  13. Jager A, Turnbull J, Johnson MJ, Hall NJ. Exploring the current usage of and attitudes towards transanastomotic tube (TAT) feeding in infants born with duodenal atresia: a survey of practice in the UK. BMJ Paediatrics Open. 2025;9(1):e003267. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-003267 ↩
  14. Pijpers AGH, Hogerwerf M, Van den Bunder FAIM, et al. Long-term gastrointestinal sequelae in patients who underwent surgery for congenital duodenal obstruction. Pediatric Surgery International. 2025;42(1):46. doi:10.1007/s00383-025-06223-3 ↩
  15. Varni JW, Bendo CB, Denham J, et al. PedsQL Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scales and Gastrointestinal Worry Scales in pediatric patients with functional and organic gastrointestinal diseases in comparison to healthy controls. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(2):363–378. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0781-x ↩
  16. Vinycomb T, Browning A, Jones MLM, Hutson JM, King SK, Teague WJ. Quality of life outcomes in children born with duodenal atresia. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2020;55(10):2111–2114. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.11.017 ↩
  17. Lum Min SA, Imam M, Zrinyi A, Shawyer AC, Keijzer R. Post-discharge follow-up of congenital duodenal obstruction patients: a systematic review. Pediatric Surgery International. 2023;39(1):239. doi:10.1007/s00383-023-05515-w ↩