ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Lung hernia: an updated narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Pulmonary (lung) hernia is an uncommon condition in which aerated lung protrudes beyond the normal confines of the thorax through a defect at the thoracic inlet, chest wall, mediastinum, or diaphragm. Although historically linked to trauma, recent reports increasingly involve postoperative patients, including those after lung transplantation, and situations associated with repeated spikes in intrathoracic pressure. We conducted a narrative review to summarize contemporary diagnosis and management. Methods: We performed a targeted literature search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Taylor and Francis Online, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through December 31, 2025. The search was performed in January 2026. We included studies in English or French describing pulmonary or lung hernia of any anatomic subtype or etiology in humans. We extracted data on hernia location, suspected cause, clinical presentation, imaging, management strategy, complications, and outcomes. Key Content and Findings: The literature is dominated by case reports and small series with heterogeneous definitions and inconsistent reporting of defect anatomy, operative technique, and follow-up. Most published cases involve thoracic or intercostal defects, while cervical hernias are less common and mediastinal or diaphragmatic variants are rare. Computed tomography is the primary diagnostic test, sometimes supported by dynamic maneuvers to reproduce the protrusion. Management is guided by symptoms and anatomy. Observation is often chosen for small, reducible defects, whereas progressive enlargement, pain, impaired reducibility, concern for incarceration, ventilatory dependence, or chest wall instability typically lead to operative repair with reconstruction and selective reinforcement. Conclusions: More consistent reporting and multicenter data are needed to define progression risk and compare surgical techniques and materials, particularly in high-risk postoperative and post-thoracic transplant populations.
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.