4.6 Article

Longitudinal Analysis of Visual Outcomes After Surgical Treatment of Adult Craniopharyngiomas

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 715-721

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318262146b

关键词

Craniopharyngioma; Long-term; Recurrence; Short-term; Visual deterioration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Craniopharyngiomas (CRPs) often cause visual deterioration (VD) due to the close vicinity of the optic apparatus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate longitudinal visual outcomes after surgery of CRP and determine the prognostic factors thereof. METHODS: One hundred forty-six adult patients who underwent surgery for newly diagnosed CRP were retrospectively reviewed. There were 87 male patients (60%), and the median age was 41 years (range, 18-75). The mean follow-up duration was 88.7 months (range, 24-307). A visual impairment score was used to assess the short-term (<1 month) and long-term (>2 years) visual outcomes. RESULTS: Gross total removal was performed in 53 patients (36%), and tumor recurrence occurred in 40 patients (27%). The average preoperative, short- and long-term visual impairment scores were 44.4, 38.5, and 38.1, respectively, on a 0- to 100-point scale (with 100 indicating the worst vision). Short-and long-term VD occurred in 28 (19%) and 39 patients (27%), respectively. Subtotal removal (STR) alone (P = .010; OR = 4.8), short-termVD (P < .001; OR = 39.7), and tumor recurrence (P < .001; OR = 28.2) were significant risk factors for long-term VD in the multivariate analysis. Patients undergoing STR alone had higher tumor recurrence rates in comparison with those who underwent gross total removal or STR with adjuvant therapy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Short-term VD secondary to the surgical insult and the recurrence of the tumor were strong predictors of long-term visual outcomes after surgical treatment for CRP. STR alone may be an ineffective strategy for achieving tumor control and optimal visual outcomes in patients with CRP.

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

4.6
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