Ghattaura H, Ross A, Aldeiri B, Mutanen A, Saxena A. Managing giant omphalocele: A systematic review of surgical techniques and outcomes.
Acta Paediatr 2024;
113:2459-2465. [PMID:
38992931 DOI:
10.1111/apa.17346]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2024] [Revised: 06/19/2024] [Accepted: 06/26/2024] [Indexed: 07/13/2024]
Abstract
AIM
We analysed closure techniques in the treatment of giant omphalocele. A challenging pathology where there lacks consensus.
METHODS
Cochrane, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2022 using terms and variations: omphalocele, exomphalos, giant, closure and outcome. Papers were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses 2020 criteria. Data collected included demographics, timing and technique of surgical repair, morbidity and mortality.
RESULTS
We identified 342 papers; 34 met inclusion criteria with a total 356 neonates. Initial non-operative management was described in 26 papers (14 dressings, eight silo, four serial sac-ligation). Operative techniques by paper were as follows: Early closure: nine primary suture closure without patch, two primary closure with patch and four mixed methods. Delayed closure: five simple, four-component separation technique, four tissue expanders, one Botox/pneumoperitoneum and two with patch. Median number of procedures was two (1-6) in the early group versus three (1-4) in the delayed. The most favourable was early primary closure with biological patch. The most unfavourable was delayed closure with patch. Cumulative reported mortality remained high, mostly due to non-surgical causes.
CONCLUSION
Definitions of giant omphalocele in the literature were heterogeneous with a variety of management approaches described.
Collapse