3.9 Article

Endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical treatment of suprasellar arachnoidal cysts (Mickey Mouse cysts)

Journal

MINIMALLY INVASIVE NEUROSURGERY
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 283-288

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-870953

Keywords

suprasellar cyst; neuroendoscopy; keyhole approach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Suprasellar arachnoid cysts represent less than 10% of all intracranial arachnoid cysts. Some of them may be quiescent throughout life, some may become symptomatic as they become enlarged and some disappear spontaneously. In this study we discuss the surgical strategies for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted treatment of suprasellar (Mickey Mouse) cysts and analyze the clinical results and experience collected over some years in our department upon doing these operations routinely. Between December 1996 and December 2003, 13 patients (7 female and 6 male patients), mean age 29 years, underwent endoscopic or endoscope-assisted procedures for suprasellar cysts at our department. The indication for surgical treatment was based on the neurological and radiological examination. The goal of surgical treatment was to normalize the cerebrospinal fluid flow and to establish a communication, permanently, between the cyst cavity and the intraventricular or/and subarachnoid space. Intraoperatively we observed in all patients no com pi i cations. Seven of 13 patients, who had received shunt systems in other hospitals before admission in our clinic, remained shunt-free postoperatively. Overall clinical improvement was achieved for a long period of between 6 and 74 months in 11 patients, one developed a psychomotor disturbance and another one, who had epilepsy before treatment, was unchanged postoperatively. Our data suggest that suprasellar cysts are well treated by endoscopic or endoscope-assisted procedures with good clinical outcome and low surgical morbidity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available