4.3 Article

Endoscopic resection of esthesioneuroblastoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 19, 期 11, 页码 1478-1482

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.03.011

关键词

Endoscopy; Esthesioneuroblastoma; Olfactory neuroblastoma; Skull base surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Esthesioneuroblastoma, or olfactory neuroblastoma, is an uncommon malignant tumor arising in the upper nasal cavity. Surgical approaches to this and other sinonasal malignancies involving the anterior skull base have traditionally involved craniofacial resections. Over the past 10 years to 15 years, there have been advances in endoscopic approaches to skull base pathologies, including malignant tumors. In this study, we review our experience with purely endoscopic approaches to esthesioneuroblastomas. Between January 2005 and February 2012, 11 patients (seven men and four women, average age 53.3 years) with esthesioneuroblastoma were treated endoscopically. Nine patients presented with newly diagnosed disease and two were treated for tumor recurrence. The modified Kadish staging was: A, two patients (18.2%); B, two patients (18.2%); C, five patients (45.5%); and D, two patients (18.2%). All patients had a complete resection with negative intraoperative margins. Three patients had 2-deoxy-2-(F-18)fluoro-D-glucose avid neck nodes on their preoperative positron emission tomography-CT scan. These patients underwent neck dissections; two had positive neck nodes. Perioperative complications included an intraoperative hypertensive urgency and pneumocephalus in two different patients. Mean follow-up was over 28 months and all patients were free of disease. This series adds to the growing experience of purely endoscopic surgical approaches in the treatment of skull base tumors including esthesioneuroblastoma. Longer follow-up on larger numbers of patients is required to clarify the utility of purely endoscopic approaches in the management of this malignant tumor. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据