ArticlePediatric surgery international2012
Defect-diaphragmatic ratio: a new parameter for assessment of defect size in neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-dimensional MRI reconstruction of diaphragmatic defects in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and mortality prediction.European radiology · 2026Article
- The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Review
- Three-dimensional reconstruction of defects in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a fetal MRI study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of our study is to introduce a new objective method of perioperative evaluation of the size of diaphragmatic defect to enable comparison of results among various centres and methods used for diaphragmatic reconstruction. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective observational study of neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) and respiratory distress within 24 h of birth operated on from January 2009 to December 2011. Weight, length, thoracic shape and the diameters of diaphragmatic defect were measured. To determine the relative size of the defect, a defect-diaphragmatic ratio (DDR = defect area:diaphragm area × 100) was calculated. The measured and calculated data were subsequently compared between Gore-Tex patch group (GT) and primary repair group (PR). Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis.
resultsForty-seven patients with CDH were admitted during study period. The overall survival rate was 79 % (37/47). Preoperative stabilization was achieved in 85 % (40/47). Survival of operated neonates was 93 % (37/40). Diaphragmatic reconstruction with Gore-Tex patch was used in 7 neonates (17 %), and primary repair in 33 (83 %). Mortality in Gore-Tex group was 29 %; mortality in primary repair group was 3 %. Data of anthropometric measurement were complete in 34 children (5 GT and 29 PR). Significant differences were found between GT group and PR group in the size of diaphragmatic defect with the transverse and sagittal diameters of defect (48.0 ± 5.7 vs. 30.1 ± 5.9, P < 0.00061; 34.0 ± 12.5 vs. 16.0 ± 7.3, P < 0.0022) and DDR (18.29 ± 4.60 vs. 5.77 ± 3.28, P < 0.0005), respectively.
conclusionThe value of DDR as an objective criterion of the extent of diaphragmatic defect was confirmed by the close correlation between DDR and feasibility of primary repair in the study group. This objective assessment of defect size may improve comparing various surgical techniques and results of different centres, and thus facilitates sharing experience with management of neonates with CDH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22752200What 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.