4.5 Editorial Material

Predictors of Severe Complications in Intracranial Meningioma Surgery: A Population-Based Multicenter Study

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 83, 期 5, 页码 673-678

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.022

关键词

Charlson Comorbidity Index; Complications; Ibanez classification; Karnofsky performance scale; Meningioma; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of complications after intracranial meningioma resection using a standardized reporting system for adverse events. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted in a Scandinavian population-based cohort of 979 adult operations for intracranial meningioma performed at 3 neurosurgical centers with population-based referral between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013. Possible predictors of severe complications were identified and analyzed in univariable analyses. Variables with a P value < 0.10 were included in a multivariable model. RESULTS: Severe complications were observed in 68 (7%) operations. Univariable analyses identified patient age >70 years (P < 0.001), male sex (P = 0.03), Charlson Comorbidity Index >1 (P = 0.02), Simpson grade >3 (P = 0.03), Karnofsky performance scale score <70 ( P < 0.001), and duration of surgery >4 hours (P < 0.001) as significant predictors of severe complications. Age >70 (odds ratio = 2.5, P < 0.01), duration of surgery >4 hours (odds ratio = 3.2, P < 0.001), and Karnofsky performance scale score <70 (odds ratio = 2.5, P < 0.01) were independent predictors of severe complications in the multivariable regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Severe complications after meningioma resection are more encountered often in elderly patients (>70 years old), dependent patients (Karnofsky performance scale score <70), and patients who underwent longer lasting surgery (>4 hours). Patient selection, including careful consideration of the individual risk-benefit ratio, is important in improving the safety of intracranial meningioma resection.

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