4.1 Review

Systematic review of pineal cysts surgery in pediatric patients

期刊

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 36, 期 12, 页码 2927-2938

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-020-04792-3

关键词

Microneurosurgery; Pineal cysts; Sitting position; Supracerebellar infratentorial approach

资金

  1. University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction We present a consecutive case series and a systematic review of surgically treated pediatric PCs. We hypothesized that the symptomatic PC is a progressive disease with hydrocephalus at its last stage. We also propose that PC microsurgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes compared to other treatments. Methods The systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Scopus. No clinical study on pediatric PC patients was available. We performed a comprehensive evaluation of the available individual patient data of 43 (22 case reports and 21 observational series) articles. Results The review included 109 patients (72% females). Ten-year-old or younger patients harbored smaller PC sizes compared to older patients (p< 0.01). The pediatric PCs operated on appeared to represent a progressive disease, which started with unspecific symptoms with a mean cyst diameter of 14.5 mm, and progressed to visual impairment with a mean cyst diameter of 17.8 mm, and hydrocephalus with a mean cyst diameter of 23.5 mm in the final stages of disease (p< 0.001). Additionally, 96% of patients saw an improvement in their symptoms or became asymptomatic after surgery. PC microsurgery linked with superior gross total resection compared to endoscopic and stereotactic procedures (p< 0.001). Conclusions Surgically treated pediatric PCs appear to behave as a progressive disease, which starts with cyst diameters of approximately 15 mm and develops with acute or progressive hydrocephalus at the final stage. PC microneurosurgery appears to be associated with a more complete surgical resection compared to other procedures.

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