SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Historical evolution of thoracoscopic repair for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: an era-based systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracoscopic repair for congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) has increasingly gained acceptance; however, earlier studies demonstrated higher recurrence rates than open repair. Because thoracoscopic CDH repair has evolved substantially over time, historical outcomes may not reflect contemporary practice. We evaluated temporal changes in outcomes after thoracoscopic repair through an era-based systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsEmbase, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies comparing thoracoscopic and open CDH repair. Random-effects meta-analyses, era-based subgroup analyses (pre-2015 vs post-2015), meta-regression analyses, and temporal trend analyses of conversion rates were performed.
resultsTwenty-seven studies involving 9,396 patients were included. Overall pooled analysis demonstrated significantly higher recurrence after thoracoscopic repair than open repair (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.88-3.14, p < 0.001). However, recurrence rates became more comparable in post-2015 studies (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.81-2.54). Meta-regression demonstrated a significant temporal reduction in recurrence disadvantage over time (p = 0.0059). Mortality was lower in the thoracoscopic group, although this finding likely reflected selection bias favoring physiologically stable patients.
conclusionsAlthough thoracoscopic repair remains associated with higher overall recurrence rates, its relative recurrence disadvantage has decreased substantially over time. Contemporary thoracoscopic repair may achieve recurrence outcomes approaching those of open repair in carefully selected patients treated at experienced centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42717045What 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.