4.1 Article

Surgical morbidity and mortality of pediatric brain tumors: a single center audit

Journal

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages 1583-1592

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-010-1086-1

Keywords

Brain neoplasms; Craniotomy; Mortality; Complication; Postoperative; Benchmarking; Quality assurance; Health Care; Clinical audit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The primary aim of this study is to perform an internal quality control of pediatric brain tumor surgery in the neurosurgical department of the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam (The Netherlands). Secondly, this study aims to contribute to the accumulating data concerning outcome in pediatric neurosurgery, in order to establish institutional practice benchmarks. Methods We report the surgical mortality and morbidity of 121 patients (0-18 years) surgically treated for a brain tumor from January 1999 to August 2007. Patients, in whom only a brain tumor biopsy was performed, were excluded. Results Mean age at first surgery was 8.2 years. Of the 121 patients, 14 had a second surgery, and two underwent a third surgery (for a total of 137 operations). Of all 121 primary surgeries, 66% were total resections, 26% subtotal resections, and 8% partial resections. The overall surgical morbidity rate in this study was 69% after first surgery, 50% after second surgery, and one out of two after third surgery. Conclusion These overall morbidity rates are comparable to other published mixed case series. The surgical mortality rate was 0.8%; this is comparable to the lowest rates reported for high-volume neurosurgical centers. We encourage other neurosurgical centers to collect, analyze, and publish their data. These data can then serve as a basis for comparison with other pediatric neurosurgical centers and will eventually lead to an improvement of pediatric neurosurgical practice and patient care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available