Abstract Search

ISEF | Projects Database | Finalist Abstract

Back to Search Results | Print PDF

Neuroendoscopic Bias: A Comparison of EVD and IVF in IVH Secondary to SICH: A Pediatric Oncologic Case Study on Neuroendoscopy, External Ventricular Drainage, and Intraventricular Fibrinolysis Regarding Intraventricular Hemorrhage Secondary to Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Children With Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumor (T2N1M1)

Booth Id:
TMED071

Category:
Translational Medical Science

Year:
2023

Finalist Names:
Brogdon, Adler Isabella (School: St. Patrick Catholic High School)

Abstract:
Neuroendoscopy paired with external ventricular drainage consistently produces a higher positive patient prognosis in children with atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (T2N1M1) who developed an intraventricular hemorrhage secondary to spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage than neuroendoscopy paired with intraventricular fibrinolysis or external ventricular drainage paired with intraventricular fibrinolysis, respectively. Along with lower mortality rates, the treatment also decreases overall invasiveness, possibility of complication, and patient strain- all of which are especially important in pediatric care due to the increased fragility and post-remission risk. This data opens the opportunity for neuroendoscopy paired with external ventricular drainage to become the standard of care for this atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor complication- bringing physicians, parents, and patients out of the dark ages of medicine. This study is limited by the small sample used in clinical trials, opening up the door for clinical bias. Another limitation is- though neuroendoscopy paired with external ventricular drainage is proven to improve the prognosis for patients -the data on neurological function over and extending past a two-year period have not had time to properly be reported. A third limitation is the fact that each case of atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor, as with any case of cancer, is uniquely individualistic; no two cases can be compared and no treatment will work the same between different patients. All of these limitations mean that these results still need further clinical trials for confirmation. Within the bounds of the experiment and statistical importance, the data holds true regardless of limitation.