4.5 Article

Endoscopic Transnasal Craniotomy and the Resection of Craniopharyngioma

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 118, 期 7, 页码 1142-1148

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e318170b5dc

关键词

Endoscopic; skull base; craniopharyngioma; septal flap; craniotomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: To describe the utility of a large transnasal craniotomy and its reconstruction in the surgical management of patients with craniopharyngioma. Study Design: Observational retrospective cohort study. Methods. Retrospective review of patients treated in an academic neurosurgery/rhinology practice between 2000 and 2007. Patient characteristics (age, sex, follow-up), tumor factors (size, position extension, previous surgery), type of repair (pedicled mucosal flaps, free mucosal grafts), and outcomes (visual, endocrine, and surgical morbidity) were defined and sought in patients who had an entirely endoscopic resection of extensive craniopharyngioma (defined as requiring removal of the planum sphenoidale in addition to sella exposure in the approach). Results: Seven patients had an entirely endoscopic resection of extensive craniopharyngioma during the study period. Mean age was 23.4 years (standard deviation 16.3). Mean tumor size was 3.2 cm (standard deviation 2.0). The majority of these pathologies had extensive suprasellar disease, and two (28.6%) had ventricular disease. Cerebrospinal fluid leak rate was 29% (2 of 7). These leaks occurred only in reconstructions with free mucosal grafts. There were no cerebrospinal fluid leaks in patients who had vascularized pedicled septal flap repairs. Conclusions: The endoscopic management of large craniopharyngioma emphasizes recent advancements in endoscopic skull base surgery. The ability to provide exposure through a large (4 cm+) transnasal craniotomy, near-field assessment of neurovascular structures, and the successful reconstruction of a large skull defect have significantly advanced the field in the past decade. The use of a

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

4.5
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