ReviewWorld journal of pediatric surgery2024
Lung-protective ventilation in the management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia.
Review in World journal of pediatric surgery, 2024. 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.
- Hemodynamic Phenotypes in Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: Unresolved Questions and Future Directions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hazardous Hernia: Mechanical Ventilation in an Adult With a Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia.Cureus · 2026Article
- Postnatal management of preterm infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Observational
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
Prioritizing lung-protective ventilation has produced a clear mortality benefit in neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). While there is a paucity of CDH-specific evidence to support any particular approach to lung-protective ventilation, a growing body of data in adults is beginning to clarify the mechanisms behind ventilator-induced lung injury and inform safer management of mechanical ventilation in general. This review summarizes the adult data and attempts to relate the findings, conceptually, to the CDH population. Critical lessons from the adult studies are that much of the damage done during conventional mechanical ventilation affects normal lung tissue and that most of this damage occurs at the low-volume and high-volume extremes of the respiratory cycle. Consequently, it is important to prevent atelectasis by using sufficient positive end-expiratory pressure while also avoiding overdistention by scaling tidal volume to the amount of functional lung tissue rather than body weight. Paralysis early in acute respiratory distress syndrome improves outcomes, possibly because consistent respiratory mechanics facilitate avoidance of both atelectasis and overdistention-a mechanism that may also apply to the CDH population. Volume-targeted conventional modes may be advantageous in CDH, but determining optimal tidal volume is challenging. Both high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and high-frequency jet ventilation have been used successfully as 'rescue modes' to avoid extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and a prospective trial comparing the two high-frequency modalities as the primary ventilation strategy for CDH is underway.
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.