Sacrococcygeal teratoma: single center experience and functional long-term follow-up.

Lorenzo Nanni, Carlo Manzoni, Raffaella Canali, Claudio Pintus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To propose long-term follow-up protocol to analyse clinical and functional aspects and evaluate the Quality of Life (QoL) of patients with Sacrococcygeal Teratoma (SCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The long-term follow-up of 14 out of 28 patients has been assessed through the retrospective review of data related to antenatal diagnosis, obstetric pathology and surgery, collected from July 1985 to December 2009. It has been accomplished by analysing functional and aesthetic outcomes and the QoL experienced by the patients with an average observation range of 121 months for each patient. RESULTS: Concerning the anorectal functionality, 14% of patients reported impairment of fecal continence while 36% had completely normal bowel habits. Other health problems varying from urinary incontinence to neurogenic bladder were reported by 36% of patients. Dealing with the functionality of lower limbs, 20% of patients exhibited minor dysfunctions while 7% major ones. Optimal aesthetic outcome of the surgical scar has been reported only by 21% of the specimen. The evaluation of QoL pointed out that 64% of patients are moderately satisfied while 36% presented problems. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that functional sequelae should play an important role during antenatal counselling and that the urological and anorectal follow-up for SCT patients should be long-term evaluated. Furthermore, aesthetic aspects and psychological support should be taken into account carefully especially during childhood
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)99-106
Number of pages8
JournalLA CLINICA TERAPEUTICA
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Keywords

  • teratoma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Sacrococcygeal teratoma: single center experience and functional long-term follow-up.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this