4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Surgery for Brainstem Cavernous Malformations: Association between Preoperative Grade and Postoperative Quality of Life

期刊

OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 590-598

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ons/opz337

关键词

Brainstem cavernous malformation; Cavernoma; Grading system; Quality of life; Short Form 36; Surgical outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Brainstem cavernous malformations (BSCMs) are associated with substantial neurologic morbidity, but the literature on quality of life (QoL) after surgical treatment is limited. There is a need for validating the clinical utility of current grading scales for cavernous malformations. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcome of surgery for BSCMs and validate how outcome is associated with current grading scales for cavernous malformations. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a single-surgeon series of patients with BSCM treated surgically during a 10-yr period. Outcome was categorized according to modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and QoL was assessed by interviewing patients using Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey and comparing results with the normative population. The mRS and QoL were correlated with the Lawton BSCM grading scale and with the Zabramski classification of cavernous malformations. RESULTS: The study included 22 patients (12 males and 10 females; median age 58 yr). No mortality related to the BSCM surgery occurred, and none were in vegetative state. In SF-36, 70% of patients reported a physical and mental functioning non inferior compared to the general population of comparative age and gender group. There was a significant positive correlation between the Lawton BSCM grading and the postoperative mRS score and QoL. CONCLUSION: Outcome of surgery for BSCM was good, as assessed by mRS and QoL. The Lawton grading scale for BSCMs correlated significantly with the postoperative mRS score and QoL, suggesting this grading scale may become a useful clinical tool for treatment prognostication at the individual level.

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