DOI 10.1007/s00381-026-07153-8
Nordic survey on practice of neurosurgical management of craniopharyngioma in children.
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Management of childhood-onset craniopharyngioma (CP) may be challenging, given its rarity and complexity as well as the risks associated with treatment. We aimed at investigating how the practice of neurosurgical management of CP in children differs among neurosurgical centres in Nordic countries.
METHODS
We performed a survey containing 28 questions and focusing on organization of care, expertise availability, treatment decisions and strategies, and follow-up routines, respectively. The survey was distributed to 21 neurosurgical centres in five Nordic countries.
RESULTS
We obtained answers from 18 centres (86% response rate). In 61% of centres, only 0-1 new cases are treated per year. In only one country (Denmark), the neurosurgical treatment of pediatric CP is centralized to one centre. While all cases are discussed at MDT meetings before surgery and during the follow-up, management strategies, including surgical indications, goals, and approaches, vary substantially among responding centres.
CONCLUSION
The practice of neurosurgical management of pediatric CP in the Nordic countries is characterized by relatively low case volumes, differing management strategies, as well as varying degrees of centralization and collaboration between pediatric and adult neurosurgeons. Although some practical aspects may be unique for healthcare practised in the Nordic countries, the results of this survey and, in particular, the embedded discussion of centralization - either restricted to surgery or including complete management of pediatric CP - seem relevant and may provide useful insights also to neurosurgeons outside of the Nordics.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.