Journals / Türkiye Çocuk Hastalıkları Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

Pseudotumor Cerebri; Single Center Experience

Psödotümör Serebri; Tek Merkez Deneyimi

Pages
193–202
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was determined that the use of old and new diagnostic criteria would not make a difference in terms of diagnosis and treatment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study was planned with the aim of retrospectively reviewing the clinical and laboratory findings and the therapies of patients diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri, redefining the patients according to the diagnostic criteria revised by Friedman et al. (2013), and comparing them with the literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: 40 patients diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri at the Pediatric Neurology Clinic were reevaluated in terms of clinical findings and therapies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was determined that the use of old and new diagnostic criteria would not make a difference in terms of diagnosis and treatment.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: This study was planned with the aim of retrospectively reviewing the clinical and laboratory findings and the therapies of patients diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri, redefining the patients according to the diagnostic criteria revised by Friedman et al. (2013), and comparing them with the literature. Material and Methods: 40 patients diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri at the Pediatric Neurology Clinic were reevaluated in terms of clinical findings and therapies. The diagnoses were compared according to the modified Dandy and 2013 Friedman criteria. Results: The 40 patients who had been diagnosed as “definite pseudotumor cerebri” using the modified Dandy criteria were reclassified with the 2013 diagnostic criteria and there were no changes in the diagnoses of 37 patients while three patients were shifted to the “probable pseudotumor cerebri” group. The mean age of the patients was 11.15 ± 3.32 years. Forty percent of the patients were prepubertal and 60% were in the pubertal period. Twenty-eight patients were diagnosed with primary and 12 patients with secondary pseudotumor cerebri. Headache was the most common complaint of the patients. All patients received medical treatment. A lumboperitoneal shunt was replaced in one patient who did not respond to treatment. Conclusion: The signs and symptoms of our patients were compatible with the literature. Obesity was a factor in 53.5% of the primary pseudotumor cerebri patients while the causes for secondary pseudotumor cerebri were similar to the literature and most of them responded to medical treatment. It was determined that the use of old and new diagnostic criteria would not make a difference in terms of diagnosis and treatment.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışma, psödotümör serebri tanısı konulan olgularımızın klinik, laboratuvar bulgularını ve tedavilerini geriye dönük olarak gözden geçirmek ve 2013 yılında Friedman ve ark. tarafından yeniden belirlenen tanı ölçütlerine göre hastaları yeniden tanımlayarak literatür ile karşılaştırmak amacıyla planlanmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çocuk Nöroloji Kliniği’nde 40 psödotümör serebri tanılı hastalar klinik bulguları ve tedavileri yönünden geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Tanılar Modifiye Dandy kriterleri ve 2013 Friedman tanı ölçütlerine göre tekrar karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Modifiye Dandy kriterlerine göre “kesin psödotümör serebri” tanısı alan 40 hastanın 2013 tanı kriterlerine göre tekrar sınıflandırıldığında 37’sinin tanısında değişiklik olmazken, üç hastanın “olası psödotümör serebri” grubuna kaydığı görüldü. Hastaların yaş ortalaması 11.15±3.32 yıl olup, %40’ı prepübertal, %60’ı pübertal dönemde idi. Yirmi sekiz hastaya (%70) birincil psödotümör serebri, 12 hastaya ise ikincil psödotümör serebri (%30) tanısı kondu. Baş ağrısıhastaların en sık başvuru şikayeti (%55)’di. Tüm hastaların medikal tedavi aldığı saptandı. Tedaviye yanıt vermeyen birhastaya ise lumboperitoneal şant takıldığı tespit edildi.Sonuç: Hastalarımızın belirti ve bulgularının literatür ile uyumlu olduğu görüldü. Birincil psödotümör serebrili hastalarımızın %53.5’nin obezite ile ilişkili olduğu, ikincil psödotümör serebri nedenleri açısından ise nedenlerin literatür ilebenzeştiği ve çoğunun medikal tedaviye yanıt verdiği gözlendi. Eski ve yeni tanı ölçütlerinin kullanılmasının tanı ve tedaviaçısından farklılık yaratmayacağı saptandı.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAYCIOĞLU, R. A., SAYGI, S., ALKAN, Ö., ÖZKALE, M., EROL, İ., KARATAŞ, M. Ç., ÖZKALE, Y. (2022). Pseudotumor Cerebri; Single Center Experience. Türkiye Çocuk Hastalıkları Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 193–202. https://ajindex.com/articles/627223

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Phillips PH, Sheldon CA. Pediatric pseudotumor cerebri syndrome. J Neuroophthalmol 2017;37:33–40
  2. Friedman DI, Liu GT, Digre KB. Revised diagnostic criteria for the pseudotumor cerebri syndrome in adults and children. Neurology 2013;81:1159-65
  3. Spennato P, Ruggiero C, Parlato RS, et al. Pseudotumor cerebri. Childs Nerv Syst 2011;27:215–35
  4. Tibussek D, Schneider DT, Vandemeulebroecke N, Turowski B, Messing-Juenger M, Willems PH, et al. Clinical spectrum of the pseudotumor cerebri complex in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2010;26:313-21
  5. Wraige E, Chandler C, Pohl KR. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: Is papil edema inevitable? Arch Dis Child 2002;87:223-4
  6. Per H, Canpolat M, Gümüş H, Poyrazoğlu HG, Yıkılmaz A, Karaküçük S, et al. Clinical spectrum of the pseudotumor cerebri in children: Etiological, clinical features, treatment and prognosis. Brain Dev 2013;35:561-8
  7. Incecik F, Hergüner MO, Altunbaşak S. Evaluation of sixteen children with pseudotumor cerebri. Turk J Pediatr 2011;53:55-8
  8. Değerliyurt A, Teber S, Karakaya G, Güven A, Şeker ED, Arhan EP, et al. Pseudotumor cerebri/idiopathic intracranial hypertension in children: An experience of a tertiary care hospital. Brain Dev 2014;36:690-9
  9. Hacifazlioglu N, Yilmaz Y. Pseudotumour cerebri in children: Etiological, clinical features and treatment modalities. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2012;16:349-55
  10. Fuqua JS. Treatment and outcomes of precocious puberty: An update. Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:2198-207
  11. Masri A, Jaafar A, Noman R, Gharaibeh A, Ababneh OH. Intracranial hypertension in children: Etiologies, clinical features, and outcome. J Child Neurol 2015;30:1562-8
  12. Avery RA, Shah SS, Licht DJ, et al. Reference range for cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure in children. N Engl J Med 2010;363:891-3
  13. Smith JL. Whence pseudotumor cerebri?. J Clin Neuroophthalmol 1985;5:55-6
  14. Cleves-Bayon C. Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension in Children and Adolescents: An Update. Headache 2018;58:485-93
  15. Tibussek D, Distelmaier F, Karenfort M, Harmsen S, Klee D, Mayatepek E. Probable pseudotumor cerebri complex in 25 children. Further support of a concept. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2017;21:280-5
  16. Inger HE, Rogers DL, McGregor ML, Aylward SC, Reem RE. Diagnostic criteria in pediatric intracranial hypertension. J AAPOS 2017;21:492-5
  17. Maralani PJ, Hassanlou M, Torres C, et al. Accuracy of brain imaging in the diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Clin Ra