4.1 Article

Surgical treatment of pineal cysts in non-hydrocephalic and neurologically intact patients: selection of surgical candidates and clinical outcome

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 37-42

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2018.1530731

关键词

Pineal cyst; intracranial hypertension; CSF flow obstruction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Management of patients presenting for various nonspecific complaints without clear neurological abnormalities and with normal ventricular size remains highly controversial. We intended to share our rationale for surgical treatment of patients who show symptoms of transient increase of intracranial pressure owing to the presence of the cyst. Materials and methods: We have retrospectively analyzed 28 cases of patients who presented without Parinaud syndrome nor ventricular enlargement and underwent pineal cyst removal in our centre between 2007 and 2015. We analyzed patients' age, sex, symptoms, preoperative cyst size, perioperative course, treatment outcome and neurologic status at discharge and at follow-up visits 4 and 12 months afterwards. Results: Main complaints included paroxysmal headaches, nausea, vomiting, visual disturbances, syncope and transient depression of consciousness. Mean age of patients was 31 years (17-55); there were 24 females and 4 males. Mean cyst diameter was 17 mm (10-26). Decision about surgical treament was based on signs of transient increases of intracranial pressure. All patients underwent complete cyst excision via midline suboccipital craniotomy and infratentorial supracerebellar route. Short-lasting perioperative neurological signs (notably upgaze palsy) were noted in 22 cases and uniformly resolved within the observation period of 12 months. Conclusion: Abnormal neurological findings and ventricular enlargement are not indispensable to justify surgical treatment of pineal cysts. Judicious selection of surgical candidates based predominantly on clinical grounds can lead to excellent operative results.

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

4.1
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