4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Current operative management of congenital lobar emphysema in children: A report from the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 1138-1142

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.02.043

关键词

Congenital lobar emphysema; Congenital pulmonary airway malformation; Congenital lung malformations

资金

  1. Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical presentation and operative outcomes of patients with congenital lobar emphysema (CLE) within a large multicenter research consortium. Methods: After central reliance IRB-approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed on all operatively managed lung malformations at eleven participating children's hospitals (2009-2015). Results: Fifty-three (10.5%) children with pathology-confirmed CLE were identified among 506 lung malformations. A lung mass was detected prenatally in 13 (24.5%) compared to 331 (73.1%) in non-CLE cases (p < 0.0001). Thirty-two (60.4%) CLE patients presented with respiratory symptoms at birth compared to 102 (22.7%) in non-CLE (p < 0.0001). The most common locations for CLE were the left upper (n = 24, 45.3%), right middle (n = 16, 30.2%), and right upper (n = 10, 18.9%) lobes. Eighteen (34.0%) had resection as neonates, 30 (56.6%) had surgery at 1-12 months of age, and five (9.4%) had resections after 12 months. Six (11.3%) underwent thoracoscopic excision. Median hospital length of stay was 5.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0-13.0). Conclusions: Among lung malformations, CLE is associated with several unique features, including a low prenatal detection rate, a predilection for the upper/middle lobes, and infrequent utilization of thoracoscopy. Although respiratory distress at birth is common, CLE often presents clinically in a delayed and more insidious fashion. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据