4.4 Article

Microsurgical management of spinal schwannomas: evaluation of 128 cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 40-47

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/SPI/2008/9/7/040

Keywords

nerve sheath tumor; resection; spinal schwannoma; spinal tumor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. The authors conducted a study to evaluate the clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes in patients with spinal schwannomas and without neurofibromatosis (NF). Methods. The data obtained in 128 patients who underwent resection of spinal schwannomas were analyzed. All cases with neurofibromas and those with a known diagnosis of NF Type 1 or 2 were excluded. Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) scores were used to compare patient outcomes when examining the anatomical location and spinal level of the tumor. The neurological outcome was further assessed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle testing scale. Results. Altogether, 131 schwannomas were treated in 128 patients (76 males and 52 females; mean age 47.7 years). The peak prevalence is seen between the 3rd and 6th decades. Pain was the most common presenting symptom. Gross-total resection was achieved in 127 (97.0%) of the 131 lesions. The nerve root had to be sacrificed in 34 cases and resulted in minor sensory deficits in 16 patients (12.5%) and slight motor weakness (MRC Grade 3/5) in 3 (2.3%). The KPS scores and MRC grades were significantly higher at the time of last follow-up in all patient groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). Conclusions. Spinal schwannomas may occur at any level of the spinal axis and are most commonly intradural. The most frequent clinical presentation is pain. Most spinal schwannomas in non-NF cases can be resected totally without or with minor postoperative deficits. Preoperative autonomic dysfunction does not improve significantly after surgical management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available