Congenital diaphragmatic eventration (CDE) and congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) with or without hernia sac are three different types of congenital diaphragmatic malformations, which this study evaluates. All surgically treated patients with CDE or Bochdalek type CDH between 2000 and 2016 were included in this retrospective analysis. Demographics, CDH-characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcome were evaluated. In total, 200 patients were included. Patients with an eventration or hernia sac had no significant differences and were compared as patients without a true defect to patients with a true defect. The 1-year survival of patients with a true defect was significantly lower than patients with no true defect (76% versus 97%, p = 0.001). CDH with no true defect had significantly better short-term outcomes than CDH with true defect requiring patch repair. However, at 30 days, they more often required oxygen supplementation (46% versus 26%, p = 0.03) and had a higher recurrence rate (8% versus 0%, p = 0.006) (three eventration and two hernia sac patients). Conclusion: Patients without a true defect seem to have a more similar clinical outcome than CDH patients with a true defect, with a better survival. However, the recurrence rate and duration of oxygen supplementation at 30 days are higher than CDH patients with a true defect. What is Known:• Congenital diaphragmatic hernia with or without hernia sac and congenital diaphragmatic eventration (incomplete muscularization) are often treated similarly. • Patients with hernia sac and eventration are thought to have a relatively good outcome, but exact numbers are not described. What is New: • Congenital diaphragmatic eventration and patients with hernia sac seem to have a more similar clinical outcome than Bochdalek type CDH with a true defect. • Patients without a true defect (eventration or hernia sac) have a high recurrence rate.
Introduction Congenital microgastria is an extremely rare birth defect. The aim of this study was to present an overview of existing literature on the treatment of microgastria. Materials and Methods The term “microgastria” was used in a PubMed and Medline search. Since merely case reports were found, only a narrative synthesis with limited statistical analysis can be given. Data of different treatment modalities were collected and divided into two groups: conservative or less invasive treatment (C/LT, i.e., modified diet or a gastrostomy/jejunostomy) and extensive gastric surgery (EGS, i.e., Hunt–Lawrence pouch or total esophageal gastric dissociation). Clinical outcome parameters (nutrition, growth pattern, and mortality) were compared. Results Out of 73 articles published from 1973 to 2019, 38 articles describing 51 cases were included. In four patients, microgastria was an isolated anomaly (8%). Type of treatment was described in only 46 patients, 19 were treated by C/LT. Mortality was 9/19 (47%) in the C/LT group versus 4/27 (15%) in the EGS group (chi-square = 5.829, p = 0.016, Fisher = 0.022). There was a negative correlation between the invasiveness of the treatment and both mortality (r = −0.356, p = 0.015) and comorbidity (r = −0.506, p <0.001). Patients in the C/LT group had significantly more comorbidity than in the EGS group (mean = 4.32 vs. 2.26, p = 0.001). There was a positive correlation between comorbidity and mortality (r = 0.400, p = 0.006). Median follow-up was 42 months (range: 1–240). Type and way of nutrition were poorly described. In at least 9 of the 33 surviving patients, oral feeding was reported as normal, of whom 8 belonged to the EGS group. In all patients, growth could be acknowledged, but in comparison to peers, final body length was less. There was no difference in final body length between the two treatment groups. Conclusion In patients with congenital microgastria, only minimal differences in clinical outcome in terms of type of nutrition and body growth were found when C/LT was compared with treatment by EGS. Mortality was significantly higher in the first group as well as the amount of comorbidities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.