4.5 Review

Fluorophores Use in Pituitary Surgery: A Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Appraisal

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11050565

关键词

pituitary surgery; 5-ALA; ICG; fluorescein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of fluorescent agents in pituitary surgery has the potential to improve surgical outcomes, with ICG and fluorescein showing the most promising results in differentiating pathological tissue. However, further studies are needed to optimize their use.
(1) Background: Despite many surgical and technological advances, pituitary adenoma surgery is still burdened by non-negligible rates of incomplete tumor resection, mainly due to difficulties in differentiating pathology from normal pituitary tissue. Some fluorescent agents have been recently investigated as intraoperative contrast agents in pituitary surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the actual knowledge about the usefulness of such fluorophores with a particular focus on both the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics issues of the pituitary gland. (2) Methods: We reviewed the current literature about fluorophores use in pituitary surgery and reported the first fully endoscopic experience with fluorescein. (3) Results: The studies investigating 5-ALA use reported contrasting results. ICG showed encouraging results, although with some specificity issues in identifying pathological tissue. Low-dose fluorescein showed promising results in differentiating pathology from normal pituitary tissue. Apart from the dose and timing of administration, both the fluorophores' volume of distribution and the histological variability of the interstitial space and vascular density played a crucial role in optimizing intraoperative contrast enhancement. (4) Conclusions: Both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics issues determine the potential usefulness of fluorophores in pituitary surgery. ICG and fluorescein showed the most promising results, although further studies are needed.

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