4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Split abdominal wall muscle flap repair vs patch repair of large congenital diaphragmatic hernias

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 81-86

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.10.023

Keywords

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia; Recurrence; Operative technique; Muscle flap; Prosthetic patch

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Large congenital diaphragmatic hernias are commonly repaired with a prosthetic patch. We hypothesized that a split abdominal wall muscle flap would reduce the risk of recurrence. Methods: A retrospective review of neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia in whom primary repair was not possible was performed. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards modeling were performed. Results: Of 153 patients, 46 could not have repair with primary closure of the diaphragm. Thirty-three survived to discharge and were subjected to analysis for recurrence. Ten underwent repair with a patch, whereas 23 had a muscle flap (internal oblique and transversalis) patch. The groups were similar with regard to demographics, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, repair on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and size of the defect. Fifty percent of patch repairs recurred with a median time of 0.5 years. Only one (4.3%) of the patients who had muscle flap patch developed a recurrence. This was significant on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .0009) and had a hazard ratio of 14.3 on Cox regression (P = .018). Median follow-up exceeded 4 years. No children required surgery for an abdominal wall hernia. Conclusions: The split abdominal wall muscle flap allows for closure of large congenital diaphragmatic hernia defects with autologous tissue. This approach is associated with significantly fewer recurrences than patch repairs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available