4.2 Article

Right Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernias: Is There a Correlation between Prenatal Lung Volume and Postnatal Survival, as in Isolated Left Diaphragmatic Hernias?

Journal

FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 12-18

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000464246

Keywords

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia; Fetal surgery; Prenatal imaging; Fetal magnetic resonance imaging; Fetal lung volume measurement; Fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Whereas left-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernias (L-CDH) have been extensively studied and their prognostic parameters delineated, right-sided hernias (R-CDH) have not. Published results remain inconclusive. The aim of this study is to evaluate if proven prognostic indicators of postnatal survival in the fetus with L-CDH apply to the fetus with R-CDH. Methods: Retrospective single-center study of R-CDH fetuses with available prenatal studies assessed for fetal lung volume by means of ultrasound-measured observed versus expected (O/E) lung area to head circumference (LHR) and magnetic resonance-calculated O/E total lung volume (TLV) in a 12-year time period. Percentage of herniated liver volume and postnatal use of extracorpo-real membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were also evaluated. Results: In a cohort of 24 patients, O/E LHR, O/E TLV, percentage of herniated liver, and postnatal use of ECMO are not prognostic indicators of survival in the fetus with R-CDH. Cut-off values of O/E LHR of <= 45 or O/E TLV <= 25, known to select a population of severe cases for the L-CDH fetus, do not appear to extrapolate to the R-CDH fetus, as survival in both R-CDH groups is 60%. Conclusion: The findings in this study suggest that L-and R-CDH appear to behave differently, and that factors that make L-CDH fatal (low O/E TLV and O/E LHR, high-volume herniated liver) may not apply to the fetus with R-CDH. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available