4.4 Article

The Vacuum Bell device as a sternal lifter: An immediate effect even with a short time use

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 406-410

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.04.016

Keywords

Funnel chest; Thoracic wall; Intraoperative complications; Minimally invasive surgical procedures

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP, Sao Paulo Research Foundation) [Fapesp: 2011/51156-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To minimize cardiac perforation during the minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum(MIRPE), several surgeons have suggested using a suction device to intraoperatively lift the sternum. Whether or not this technique is effective for all PE patients is not yet known. As such, our aim was to quantify the extent to which a suction device is capable of lifting the sternum with a short duration of use. Methods: 30 PE patients received a low-dose CT scan as part of standard PE evaluation. A Vacuum Bell suction was then applied for only two minutes, and a repeat CT scan was obtained only at the deepest point of the chest wall deformity. We compared chest dimensions before and after Vacuum Bell suction. Results: The Vacuum Bell lifted the sternum in all 29 patients included in the analysis. The absolute change in depth ranged from 0.29 to 23.67 mm (M = 11.02, SD = 6.05). The average improvement in Haller index was 0.76. The suction was most effective for individuals with low BMI and smaller chest depths. Efficacy was not associated with gender, age, or chest morphology. Conclusions: The Vacuum Bell device effectively lifted the sternumin PE patients with different demographics and chest morphologies. Future research is needed to address whether or not the device reduces risk of cardiac perforation during MIRPE. (C) 2017 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