4.1 Article

Management of Ovarian Dermoid Cysts in the Pediatric and Adolescent Population

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpag.2008.12.008

关键词

Adolescents; Children; Ovarian; Teratoma; Dermoid; Laparoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objective: To evaluate the surgical approach used in the management of ovarian dermoid cysts in the pediatric and adolescent population. Design: A descriptive retrospective chart review of all cases of ovarian dermoid cyst excision between January 2001 and January 2006. Setting: The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Participants: Forty-one female children and adolescents who underwent operative management of an ovarian dermoid cyst. Main Outcome Measures: Surgical approach (laparoscopy vs laparotomy), intraoperative cyst rupture, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Results: The mean age was 12.5 years. All cysts were unilateral, Twenty-three patients (56%) underwent laparoscopic cystectomy, 14 (34%) underwent cystectomy via laparotomy, and 4 (10%) oophorectomies were performed via laparotomy. Cyst size was significantly larger in the laparotomy group compared to the laparoscopy group (mean diameter 14.4 cm vs 7.1 cm, respectively, P < .001). A significantly higher rate Of Cyst rupture was experienced during laparoscopic cystectomy (100%), compared to excision via laparotomy (27.7%, P < .001). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group compared to the laparotomy group (median of 0 vs 3 clays, respectively, P < .001). A single case in the laparoscopy group sustained a bladder injury and developed postoperative necrotizing fasciitis resulting in it prolonged hospitalization and recovery. There were no operative or postoperative complications related to cyst content spillage, regardless of the Surgical approach. Conclusion: Laparoscopic cystectomy is a safe and effective method of managing ovarian dermoid cysts in the pediatric and adolescent patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据