Correction of Pectus Excavatum by Custom-Made Silicone Implants: Contribution of Computer-Aided Design Reconstruction. A 20-Year Experience and 401 Cases
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: In their recent article, Chavoin et al. advocate for the correction of pectus excavatum by using silicone implants.1 We congratulate the authors for their impressive cosmetic results obtained in a large series of adult patients, mainly with the use of custom implants constructed by means of computer-aided design. However, this article raises several issues. First, to justify an exclusively cosmetic approach, they claim the absence of demonstrable functional impairment in pectus excavatum patients and the doubtful functional utility of chest wall remodeling surgery (i.e., Nuss- and Ravitch-type procedures). These assertions are based on meta-analyses of Malek et al. and Guntheroth et al., published in 2006 and 2007, respectively.1 Although we partially agree with these assertions concerning respiratory function supported by the meta-analysis of Malek et al., Chavoin et al. fail to refer to numerous relevant works published afterward in the field, demonstrating evidence of normalized cardiovascular function after pectus excavatum repair. Notably, our prospective study conducted in 70 pectus excavatum adult patients (to our knowledge, the largest series in the literature) thoroughly assessed cardiopulmonary function before and at 1-year follow-up after Ravitch-type repair.2 Lung function tests at rest were within the normal range as usual, whereas maximal oxygen uptake (peak Vo2) was significantly impaired (77 percent of the predicted value). Evaluation of physical activity following surgery was unchanged compared with preoperative exercise habits. At 1-year follow-up, the pectus excavatum repair was associated with minor changes in lung function tests at rest and, in contrast, a statistically significant increase in maximal oxygen uptake. Postoperative increase of oxygen pulse (a surrogate of heart stroke volume) at maximal exercise suggested that aerobic capacity improvement was the result of better cardiovascular adaptation at maximal workload. In addition, in a second series of 20 adult patients, we reported that inspiratory muscle strength was significantly impaired before operation and that normalization of the thoracic cage by the Ravitch-type repair could restore adequate capacity of the inspiratory muscle system (mainly the diaphragm) to generate negative pulmonary pressure during ventilation (the so-called respiratory pump) that is essential to enhance venous return, heart filling, cardiac output and, consequently, aerobic capability.3 Thus, objective improvements of physical activity are experienced by adult patients following the pectus excavatum correction, mainly in trained athletes.2 Second, the authors claim that remodeling thoracic interventions such as the Nuss and Ravitch procedures “are rather major interventions” and that “[m]any serious complications have been reported.” However, all severe complications listed by the authors have been specifically observed only following the Nuss procedure, and we agree that this potential high-risk procedure should be discarded in the setting of pectus excavatum correction.4 In contrast, no such severe complications have been encountered following the Ravitch-type repair that fulfills the criteria of safety and reliability.5 Finally, Chavoin et al., by routinely performing basic lung function tests at rest before surgery, underestimate the impact of pectus excavatum on cardiopulmonary function, and neglect the well-known negative long-term consequences of such anomalies after which a purely cosmetic procedure would have been applied. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest in any of the products or devices mentioned in this communication. Alain Wurtz, M.D., Ph.D.Julien De Wolf, M.D.Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery DivisionLille University Teaching HospitalCHU LilleLille, France Emmanuel Brian, M.D.Thoracic DepartmentInstitut Mutualiste MontsourisParis, France Lotfi Benhamed, M.D.Thoracic and Vascular Surgery DivisionValenciennes HospitalValenciennes, France Massimo Conti, M.D.Department of Thoracic SurgeryIUCPQ-ULQuebec City, Quebec, Canada Remi Neviere, M.D., Ph.D.Department of Pulmonary Function TestsLille University Teaching HospitalCHU LilleLille, France
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».