4.4 Article

Pituitary apoplexy - bespoke patient management allows good clinical outcome

Journal

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 85, Issue 3, Pages 415-422

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cen.13075

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo describe the clinical presentation, management and outcome of pituitary apoplexy from a single centre and retrospectively apply the Pituitary Apoplexy Score (PAS). DesignRetrospective review of patients presenting with classical pituitary apoplexy to a single neurosurgical centre in the Greater Manchester region. ResultsA total of 31 cases with classical pituitary apoplexy were identified between 2005 and 2014. The mean age at presentation was 55 years, and there were 19 men. In only one patient was there prior knowledge of a pituitary adenoma. Eleven (35%) patients were managed conservatively and 20 (65%) patients managed surgically. Emergency surgery was carried out in 11 patients. At presentation, visual symptoms were present in a higher proportion of patients in the surgical group (90%) compared to the conservatively managed group (64%). At final follow-up, visual recovery was apparent in most patients in both the surgical (100%) and conservatively (86%) managed groups. The proportion of patients with hypopituitarism was high in both the surgical (86%) and conservative (73%) groups at presentation, and this failed to improve at final follow-up (90% vs 73%, respectively). The median PAS scores were higher in the surgical (PAS 2), compared to the conservatively managed group (PAS 0). ConclusionIn pituitary apoplexy patients managed conservatively or surgically, there is good recovery of visual symptoms but not endocrine function. Patients should be managed on a case-by-case basis based on the severity of symptoms at presentation, progression of disease and surgical expertise available. Further prospective studies using the PAS are required to determine its usefulness in clinical practice.

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