Purpose: Previous studies have shown a higher recurrence rate and longer operative times for thoracoscopic repair (TR) of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) compared to open repair (OR). An updated meta-analysis was conducted to re-evaluate the surgical outcomes of TR. Methods: A comprehensive literature search comparing TR and OR in neonates was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement (PROSPERO: CRD42020166588). Results: Fourteen studies were selected for quantitative analysis, including a total of 709 patients (TR: 308 cases, OR: 401 cases). The recurrence rate was higher [Odds ratio: 4.03, 95% CI (2.21, 7.36), p < 0.001] and operative times (minutes) were longer [Mean Difference (MD): 43.96, 95% CI (24.70, 63.22), p < 0.001] for TR compared to OR. A significant reduction in the occurrence of postoperative bowel obstruction was observed in TR (5.0%) compared to OR (14.8%) [Odds ratio: 0.42, 95% CI (0.20, 0.89), p = 0.02]. Conclusions: TR remains associated with higher recurrence rates and longer operative times. However, the reduced risk of postoperative bowel obstruction suggests potential long-term benefits. This study emphasizes the importance of meticulous patient selection for TR to mitigate detrimental effects on patients with severe disease.

Shibuya, S., Paraboschi, I., Giuliani, S., Tsukui, T., Matei, A., Olivos, M., et al. (2024). Comprehensive meta-analysis of surgical procedure for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: thoracoscopic versus open repair. PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL, 40 [10.1007/s00383-024-05760-7].

Comprehensive meta-analysis of surgical procedure for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: thoracoscopic versus open repair

De Coppi, Paolo
2024-07-09

Abstract

Purpose: Previous studies have shown a higher recurrence rate and longer operative times for thoracoscopic repair (TR) of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) compared to open repair (OR). An updated meta-analysis was conducted to re-evaluate the surgical outcomes of TR. Methods: A comprehensive literature search comparing TR and OR in neonates was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement (PROSPERO: CRD42020166588). Results: Fourteen studies were selected for quantitative analysis, including a total of 709 patients (TR: 308 cases, OR: 401 cases). The recurrence rate was higher [Odds ratio: 4.03, 95% CI (2.21, 7.36), p < 0.001] and operative times (minutes) were longer [Mean Difference (MD): 43.96, 95% CI (24.70, 63.22), p < 0.001] for TR compared to OR. A significant reduction in the occurrence of postoperative bowel obstruction was observed in TR (5.0%) compared to OR (14.8%) [Odds ratio: 0.42, 95% CI (0.20, 0.89), p = 0.02]. Conclusions: TR remains associated with higher recurrence rates and longer operative times. However, the reduced risk of postoperative bowel obstruction suggests potential long-term benefits. This study emphasizes the importance of meticulous patient selection for TR to mitigate detrimental effects on patients with severe disease.
9-lug-2024
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Sì, ma tipo non specificato
Settore MEDS-14/B - Chirurgia pediatrica e infantile
English
Bowel obstruction
Congenital diaphragmatic hernia
Meta-analysis
Minimally invasive surgery
Neonatal surgery
Thoracoscopy
Shibuya, S., Paraboschi, I., Giuliani, S., Tsukui, T., Matei, A., Olivos, M., et al. (2024). Comprehensive meta-analysis of surgical procedure for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: thoracoscopic versus open repair. PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL, 40 [10.1007/s00383-024-05760-7].
Shibuya, S; Paraboschi, I; Giuliani, S; Tsukui, T; Matei, A; Olivos, M; Inoue, M; Clarke, Sa; Yamataka, A; Zani, A; Eaton, S; De Coppi, P
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/417245
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact