Computed Tomographic Study of the Pediatric Diaphragmatic Growth: Application to the Treatment of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia

Abstract

Background The prosthesis commonly used for the treatment of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) lacks elasticity to replace the diaphragm's mechanical properties and does not follow the natural growth of the child treated.

Objective To determine the appropriate properties required for the prostheses, a CT study on healthy patients was conducted.

Methods Two methods of diaphragmatic surface analysis are assessed: the diaphragmatic surface is either estimated using surface 2D estimations (method 1), or calculated using length measures on thoracoabdominal CT scans from children (method 2). Patients are divided into two groups depending on their age: group 1: n = 9; median age: 2.0 months (0.1–9.5); group 2: n = 9; median age: 182.6 months (158.5–235.5). Growth factor between the two groups is calculated and the two methods are statistically compared.

Results The ratio group 2/group 1 of the diaphragmatic surfaces was 4.3 ± 0.2 on the left side and 4.0 ± 0.2 on the right side for method 1, and 5.1 ± 0.2 on the left side and 5.1 ± 0.3 on the right side for method 2. The difference in the median values between both methods is statistically significant for both the left and right sides (p = 0.022 and p = 0.002, respectively). Hence, the two methods cannot be used exchangeably.

Conclusion The treatment of CDH with large defect remains a challenge because of the high incidence of hernia recurrence probably due to prosthesis defect; thus it is important to estimate the diaphragmatic surface precisely. We aim to develop a prosthesis material that can be commonly used and found a mean diaphragmatic growth factor of approximately 4 to 5 from early childhood to adolescence.

Keywords

congenital diaphragmatic hernia - diaphragmatic growth - pediatrics

• References

• 1 Moss RL, Chen CM, Harrison MR. Prosthetic patch durability in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a long-term follow-up study. J Pediatr Surg 2001; 36 (1) 152-154
• 2 Turner CG, Klein JD, Steigman SA , et al. Preclinical regulatory validation of an engineered diaphragmatic tendon made with amniotic mesenchymal stem cells. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (1) 57-61
• 3 Clark RH, Hardin Jr WD, Hirschl RB , et al. Current surgical management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a report from the Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Study Group. J Pediatr Surg 1998; 33 (7) 1004-1009
• 4 Chiu P, Hedrick HL. Postnatal management and long-term outcome for survivors with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28 (7) 592-603
• 5 Grethel EJ, Cortes RA, Wagner AJ , et al. Prosthetic patches for congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair: Surgisis vs Gore-Tex. J Pediatr Surg 2006; 41 (1) 29-33 , discussion 29–33
• 6 Jancelewicz T, Vu LT, Keller RL , et al. Long-term surgical outcomes in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: observations from a single institution. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45 (1) 155-160 , discussion 160
• 7 Laituri CA, Garey CL, Valusek PA , et al. Outcome of congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair depending on patch type. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2010; 20 (6) 363-365
• 8 Mitchell IC, Garcia NM, Barber R, Ahmad N, Hicks BA, Fischer AC. Permacol: a potential biologic patch alternative in congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43 (12) 2161-2164
• 9 Rehan VK, Laiprasert J, Wallach M, Rubin LP, McCool FD, McCool FD. Diaphragm dimensions of the healthy preterm infant. Pediatrics 2001; 108 (5) E91
• 10 Kamata S, Usui N, Sawai T, Nose K, Kamiyama M, Fukuzawa M. Radiographic changes in the diaphragm after repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43 (12) 2156-2160
• 11 Gasior AC, St Peter SD. A review of patch options in the repair of congenital diaphragm defects. Pediatr Surg Int 2012; 28 (4) 327-333
• 12 Fauza DO. Tissue engineering in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Pediatr Surg 2014; 23 (3) 135-140