4.4 Article

Spontaneous intracranial haematomas caused by neoplasms

Journal

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
Volume 142, Issue 9, Pages 979-985

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s007010070052

Keywords

intracranial neoplasms; intracerebral haematoma; haemorrhagic stroke; computerised tomography; outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report about 50 patients with spontaneous intracerebral haematomas (ICH) caused by intracranial neoplasms to assess the underlying histological condition, their presentation on admission, diagnostic work-up, treatment, histological diagnosis, and clinical outcome. These patients were identified in a prospective series of 2041 patients with intracranial neoplasms and 692 patients with spontaneous ICH, which were both consecutively collected over a nine-year-period. The frequency of ICH in patients with intracranial neoplasms was 2.4%. The frequency of tumour related ICH in the ICH group was 7.2%. The leading cause of tumour related ICH were metastases of extracranial origin (n = 18; 36%), followed by glioblastoma multiforme (n = 15; 30%). Nine patients (18%) had benign primary intracranial neoplasms. On admission 18 patients were somnolent (36%) and 14 patients (28%) were comatose. In 29 cases (58%) ICH was the first clinical sign of neoplastic disease, while in 21 patients (42%) a malignant tumour was already known. We operated on 45 patients (90%), four patients (8%) were not operated on because of poor clinical condition and died, one patient refused surgical treatment. Six patients (12%) died despite surgery. This series confirms the importance of a proper neuroradiological and clinical work-up of patients with suspected tumour related ICH followed by operative treatment and histological confirmation of the diagnosis. This is supported by the fact that 18% of patients had prognostically favourable intracranial rumours which would not otherwise have been adequately treated.

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