4.5 Article

Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Symptomatic Brainstem Intra-Axial Cavernous Malformations

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 80, Issue 6, Pages E261-E266

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.09.013

Keywords

Brainstem; Cavernous malformation; Gamma knife radiosurgery; Hemorrhage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS) for the treatment of symptomatic brainstem intra-axial cavernous malformations (CMs) associated with high surgical morbidity. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with symptomatic brainstem intra-axial CMs were treated by GKRS between 2005 and 2010. One patient was lost to follow-up. The median age of the patients was 39.5 years (range, 24-69 years). All patients had experienced 1 or more symptomatic hemorrhages before GKRS (range, 1-3). The median marginal radiation dose was 13 Gy, and the median volume of the malformation was 0.56 mL. The median follow-up period after radiosurgery was 32 months (range, 12-82 months; mean, 38.9 months). RESULTS: Before GKRS, 31 hemorrhages (1.55 per patient) were observed. The annual hemorrhage rate before GKRS was 39.5%, excluding the first hemorrhage. After GKRS, 1 hemorrhage (0.05 per patient) was identified. It occurred 6 months after radiosurgery. The patient showed complete recovery to a premorbid status with steroid medication. The annual hemorrhage rate after GKRS was 8.2% for the first 2 years. After the expected latency period, no hemorrhages were identified. One patient (5%) exhibited permanent paresthesia, which was a new neurologic symptom in absence of any hemorrhagic event, after the radiosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: GKRS seems to be relatively effective and safe for reducing the rebleeding rate of brainstem intra-axial CMs that have high surgical risk. Careful selection of a low marginal dose and an optimal radiosurgical technique are helpful to achieve good outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available