ArticlePediatric surgery international2011
Large diaphragmatic defect: are skeletal deformities preventable?
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association of congenital diaphragmatic hernia with scoliosis.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Abdominal wall muscle weakness outcomes after split abdominal flap repair of large congenital diaphragmatic hernias in newborn.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
- Long-Term Evaluation of the Shape of the Reconstructed Diaphragm in Patients with Left-Sided Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Using Serial Chest Radiographs and Correlation to Further Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Long-term follow-up of patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.World journal of pediatric surgery · 2024Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: Report of a Multicenter Study in Japan.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Rare Course of Bilateral Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Treated Thoracoscopically-Case Report.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Outcomes of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia by side of defect in the FETO era.Pediatric surgery international · 2019Article
- Defining outcomes following congenital diaphragmatic hernia using standardised clinical assessment and management plan (SCAMP) methodology within the CDH EURO consortium.Pediatric research · 2018Review
- Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh for pediatric incisional hernia-a case report.Surgical case reports · 2017Article
- Self-assessed physical health among children with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.Pediatric surgery international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of study was to compare growth, nutritional status and incidence of chest wall deformities and scoliosis in survivors of large congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) defect (Gore-Tex patch reconstruction) with survivors with smaller defects and primary reconstruction. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn anthropometric study of 53 children who underwent CDH repair in neonatal period was carried out. Weight, height, and skin-fold thickness were measured, scoliosis and chest wall deformity were evaluated. Body mass index (BMI) and thoracic index (TI) were calculated using standard rules. The measured data were compared with national population standard with the use of standard deviation score (SDS). According to the type of diaphragmatic reconstruction, the patients were divided into two groups [Gore-Tex patch (10) versus primary repair (43)]. Student t test and Fisher exact tests were used for statistical analysis.
resultsPectus excavatum was found in 25 (47%) patients, poor posture in 33% and significant scoliosis in 5%. Compared with the population norm, CDH children had a significantly lower body height SDS (mean -0.39, p < 0.05), weight SDS (mean -0.75, p < 0.001), BMI (mean SDS -0.68, p < 0.001) and lower TI (mean SDS -0.62, p < 0.01). Gore-Tex versus primary repair group significantly differed in incidence of pectus excavatum and BMI (PE: p = 0.027, BMI SDS: p = 0.016). A majority of anthropometric parameters (weight, height, thoracic index, and thorax circumference) and incidence of scoliosis and poor posture in children after Gore-Tex patch reconstruction did not significantly differ from children after primary repair.
conclusionThe differences in some anthropometric parameters (weight, BMI, and TI) and in the skeletal deformity suggest that the CDH not only disturbs normal lung growth, but also seems to have implications on some other aspects of somatic development. Whether these changes could be related to the type of diaphragmatic reconstruction or rather to the size of the defect remains uncertain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.