4.5 Article

Endoscopic Treatment of Middle Cranial Fossa Arachnoid Cysts in Children: Surgical Results of 65 Cases

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 158, Issue -, Pages E681-E688

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.11.046

Keywords

Arachnoid cyst; Endoscopy; Neurosurgery; Pediatric

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes the clinical outcomes of an innovative minimally invasive endoscopic technique for the treatment of middle cranial fossa arachnoid cysts. The use of a mini endoscope allows for better examination and treatment of the cysts, resulting in a high success rate.
Objective: Congenital arachnoid cysts in the middle fossa accounts for 50% of all intracranial arachnoid cysts. Several management options have been described; however, no single technique has been universally adopted. We describe a series of pediatric patients with middle cranial fossa arachnoid cyst that were treated through an innovative minimally invasive endoscopic technique, along with their clinical aspects and surgical outcomes. Methods: Data from 65 patients operated between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 96 months. Clinical presentation and surgical outcomes were collected. Endoscopic cystocisternostomy was performed in all patients using a mini endoscope. Results: There were 41 male and 24 female patients, with a mean age of 5.3 years at the time of treatment. Except for 4 patients, all presented with 1 or more symptoms, and the most frequent were intracranial hypertension signs. All patients were treated with the same surgical technique, with an efficacy of 81.5%. Conclusions: Using a mini endoscope allow us to perform multiple fenestrations along the arachnoid and deeply inspect the basal cisterns, achieving a much wider communication between the cyst and subarachnoid space with a high success rate and minimal invasiveness.

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