Back

Retrospective cohort analysis of current trends in the surgical management of congenital diaphragmatic eventration in children.

Alzahrani, K.; Heng, L.; Khen-Dunlop, N.; Panait, N.; Hervieux, E.; Grynberg, L.; Abbo, O.; Hameury, F.; Lavrand, F.; Maillet, O.; Haffreingue, A.; Lehn, A.; De Napoli Cocci, S.; Habonimana, E.; Michel, J.-L.; Louise, M.; Ballouhey, Q.; Fotso Kamdem, A.; Lecompte, J.-F.; Line, A.; Poupalou, A.; Meignan, P.; Deslandes, L.; Podevin, G.; Schmitt, F.

2024-02-15 pediatrics
10.1101/2024.02.15.24302855 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimTo compare the different surgical approaches for treating congenital diaphragmatic eventration (CDE) in children. MethodsRetrospective data analysis of a multicentric cohort of pediatric patients operated on for CDE between 2010 and 2021, with comparison of the different surgical approaches and their outcomes. Results112 patients, aged 12 [5-21] months, were operated on for CDE. Diaphragmatic plication was performed using thoracoscopy or RATS in 69 (62%) cases, postero-lateral thoracotomy (PLT) in 15 (13%), and using an abdominal approach in 28 (25%). Relief of symptoms was obtained in 88% of the cases and improvement in the diaphragmatic level in 90%. We recorded 31 postoperative complications (28%) and eight recurrences (7%). Compared to other approaches, PLT multiplied the duration of intravenous analgesia by three (96 vs 36h, p<0.0001) and the length of hospital stay by two (8 vs 4d, p=0.002). RATS provided more perioperative hepatic injuries and equivalent short-term results than thoracoscopy, but all five patients remained symptomatic and two of them experienced chest wall deformities. ConclusionDiaphragmatic plication via a minimally invasive thoracic approach may be the best treatment option for cases of symptomatic CDE. Further is required to confirm that RATS is, at least, not inferior to thoracoscopy. ClinicalTrial NCT04862494, 2021-04-28;

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.