Introduction
The research focus on newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is shifting from mortality to morbidity1 with many survivors experiencing pulmonary sequelae, gastrointestinal disorders, skeletal complications and neurodevelopmental impairment.2 Historically, reports have revealed poor outcomes, with specific clinical risk factors identified, predominantly the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS), and need for oxygen and ventilation.3–6 CDH is the most commonly studied single group of surgical non-cardiac patients, but reports are still based on small numbers.7 Summary data of infants with CDH showed that mean Bayley Scales of Infant Development second edition (BSID-II) mental and psychomotor development indices of 128 patients were one SD below the normative means. ECMO was a strong outcome predictor of worse neurodevelopment, with CT brain anomalies on 75% of patients who had received ECMO for CDH and neurodevelopmental delay in 42%.8 While the ‘need’ for ECMO is obviously a marker of disease severity, thresholds for use of ECMO vary between centres, making it difficult to ascertain the specific ECMO impact on brain injury without multicentre studies.
More recent outcome studies describing children treated without ECMO (the norm in many institutions) are reassuring but rates of early developmental delay vary markedly depending on the assessment tools used,9–11 whereas in preschoolers reported rates of delay are consistently 20%–35%.12–15 Data on outcomes in school-age children report cognitive outcomes typically in the normal range, but with increased rates of attentional deficits, motor delays and decreased quality of life16–18 and high rates of academic difficulties in children aged 10–16 years.19
Inclusive and extensive follow-up of children following CDH repair is recommended,20 21 but limited early intervention (EI) resources are driving the need for identification of the children at highest risk. While medical factors may be useful surrogate markers of disease severity, neonatal neuroimaging holds promise as a biomarker of brain injury at a time when clinical detection of neurological complications is challenging. However, the literature examining neonatal neuroimaging in CDH, particularly without the influence of ECMO, is limited with small numbers undergoing MRI22 and a lack of correlation with subsequent outcome.23 Tracy et al reported the postoperative neuroimaging findings in 42 infants with CDH. All had cranial ultrasound, with 33% demonstrating anomalies; seven underwent MRI and all had reported abnormalities and 14 underwent CT with 11 revealing abnormal findings. An association between neuroimaging anomalies and 1 year neuromotor function did not persist to 3 years.24 MRI is now considered the gold standard for neonatal neuroimaging but, to our knowledge, there are no published reports of routinely performed MRI findings in relation to longer term outcomes in children with CDH. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the relationship between routinely performed neonatal neuroimaging findings (cerebral ultrasound (CUS) and MRI) and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2, 5 and 8 years of age in a clinical follow-up programme.