4.4 Article

Functional outcome and health-related quality of life in patients with sacrococcygeal teratoma - a Swedish multicenter study

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 54, Issue 8, Pages 1638-1643

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.10.044

Keywords

Sacrococcygeal teratoma; Outcome; Quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Purpose: The aims of this study were to evaluate bowel and urinary tract function, to identify predictors for dysfunctional outcome and to evaluate health-related quality-of life (QoL) in patients treated for sacrococcygeal teratomas (SCT). Methods: Medical records of patients with SCT born between 1985 and 2015 treated at three Swedish pediatric surgical centers were reviewed. Questionnaires regarding urinary tract function, bowel function and QoL were sent to patients and parents. Different QoL instruments were used for the different age groups. Results: Totally 85 patients were identified. Four patients died in the neonatal period. Forty-nine patients answered the questionnaires (60%). Median age at follow-up was 8.9 years (range 3.6-28.8). Bowel dysfunction was reported by 36% and urinary tract dysfunction by 46% of the patients. Univariate analysis revealed that urinary tract dysfunction correlated with gestational age (p = 0.018) and immature histology (p = 0.008), and bowel dysfunction correlated with gestational age (p = 0.016) and tumor size (p = 0.042). Low gestational age was an independent predictor for both urinary tract and bowel dysfunction. Good or very good QoL was reported by 56% of children aged 4-7 years, 90% of children aged 8-17 years and 67% of the adults. Conclusion: Although a considerable proportion of bowel and urinary tract dysfunction was found, the reported QoL was good in a majority of the patients with SCT. Low gestational age was found to be a predictor for bowel-and urinary tract dysfunction. (C) 2018 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