4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Spectrum of intrapartum management strategies for giant fetal cervical teratoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 446-450

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/jpsu.2003.50077

关键词

cervical teratoma; ex utero intrapartum treatment procedure; fetal surgery; airway management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: The management of the fetus with a large neck mass that obstructs the airway remains a clinical challenge. The authors review their experience with giant fetal cervical teratoma and discuss options for management. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients referred since 1994 for prenatal management of a fetal neck mass was performed. Variables examined included gestational age at diagnosis and delivery, size and location of the neck mass, presence of fetal hydrops, associated anomalies, management methods, operating time, and outcome. Results: Seven patients were identified with a prenatal diagnosis of giant cervical teratoma. Four patients had fetal hydrops; of these, 2 died in utero of hydrops, and a third fetus underwent elective termination. The remaining hydropic and previable fetus underwent fetal surgery for resection of the mass. The 3 nonhydropic patients underwent ex utero intrapartum treatment (EXIT) procedures for airway control. Endotracheal intubation was possible in one patient, and one received a tracheostomy. In the third fetus, neither intubation nor tracheostomy were possible, and resection of the neck mass was performed on placental support. There were no deaths in the surgical group. Conclusions: The management of fetal giant cervical teratoma includes a spectrum of options. For the rare previable fetus with hydrops, fetal resection may be indicated. In patients with airway obstruction, EXIT procedure provides the luxury of time to obtain airway control either by intubation, tracheostomy, or, if necessary, tumor resection on placental support. Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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