ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2016
Pectus excavatum repair from a plastic surgeon's perspective.
Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Presence of manubrium-sternum joint does not assure sufficient elevation of sternum in Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum patients.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Optimal timing for plastic surgical procedures for common congenital anomalies: A review.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2024Review
- Can a Breast Augmentation Procedure Improve the Appearance of Pectus Excavatum Deformity in Female Patients? A Prospective Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- The changes of distance between nipples following correction of women pectus excavatum.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) or similar procedures for pectus excavatum (PE) repair, nowadays no longer performed by one single speciality, may not always achieve sufficient aesthetic results, particularly in the infrapectoral or infraxiphoidal region. Reasons for this include the diaphragm inhibiting correct positioning of the bars, as well as asymmetric deformities which may still be present after remodelling attempts. Furthermore, some cases develop a mild recurrence or partial concavity once the correction bar is removed. However, any secondary re-do MIRPE procedure remains risky because of adhesions between the pleura, lung, pericardium, thoracic wall as residuals from the primary intervention. Treatment options as secondary correction for these deformities may include open access surgery, resection or reshaping of deformed costal cartilage. Moreover, augmentation of a residual concave area can be achieved by autologous transplantation of resected over-abundant cartilage, as well as by liposhifting or implantation of customized alloplastics. A physician dealing with PE corrections should be familiar with various shaping and complementary reconstructive techniques in order to provide the best options for a variety of expressions of anterior wall deformities. Among treating surgeons, there is an awareness that no single method can be applied for every kind of funnel chest deformity. An appropriate technique, either as a single approach for the ordinary deformities or in conjunction with ancillary procedures for the intricate cases, should be selected carefully based on the heterogeneity of symptoms, severity, expectations and surgical skill in addition to the available equipment. Out of a variety of such ancillary procedures available and based on experience within general plastic reconstructive surgery, some techniques for PE repair are explained and illustrated here with their advantages and disadvantages.
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.