4.6 Article

Intracranial meningioma surgery in the ninth decade of life

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 950-954

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000303190.80049.7d

Keywords

elderly; grading; meningioma; prognosis; SKALE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to assess the surgical outcome of elderly patients aged 80 years or more, to analyze the factors influencing postoperative course, and to propose a grading system to standardize the surgical indication of intracranial meningioma in the elderly. METHODS: Between 1990 and 2005, we surgically treated 74 consecutive patients aged 80 years or more for intracranial meningiomas (47 women, 27 men; mean age, 82 yr; age range, 80-90 yr). The median follow-up period was 94 months (range, 15-147 mo). We retrospectively analyzed the factors influencing surgical outcome and retained the significant factors to form the Sex, Karnofsky Performance Scale, American Society of Anesthesiology Class, Location of Tumor, and Peritumoral Edema (SKALE) grading system. RESULTS: There was no perioperative mortality, and the 1-year mortality rate was 9.4%. Postoperative mortality was lower in women with a Karnofsky Performance Scale score of 60 or greater, an American Society of Anesthesiology Class of I or 2, a noncritical tumor location, and a moderate or absent peritumoral edema. Patients with a SKALE score of more than 8 had an excellent outcome, whereas those with a SKALE score of less than 8 had a poor outcome. The rate of postoperative complications was 9.4%. Large tumors, critical locations, severe peritumoral edema, and total surgical excision were associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Surgery of intracranial meningioma in elderly patients is feasible when the SKALE score is 8 or greater. Prospective studies are required to validate this grading system.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available