3.8 Review

Neurological Complications in Benign Parapharyngeal Space Tumors - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744164

关键词

cancer of head and neck; parapharyngeal space; neurologic manifestations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parapharyngeal space tumors with complex anatomy and diverse histology are challenging for treating physicians. Neurologic complications are significantly associated with neurogenic benign tumors.
Introduction Parapharyngeal space tumors with complex anatomy and diverse histology have remained a challenging phenomenon for treating physicians. Objectives We have conducted a comprehensive web search on the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Clinicaltrials.gov databases to determine the factors that are associated with postoperative complications in parapharyngeal space tumors. Data Synthesis Two researchers reviewed all identified articles independently with a third reviewer for adjudication. Patient demographics and other clinicopathological characteristics were explored. The systematic review has identified 631 benign parapharyngeal space tumors with neurogenic and salivary tissue histology in 13 studies, with a mean age of 42.9 +/- 7.76 years old and a median follow-up of 40.98 +/- 19.1 months. Salivary gland (50.8%) and neurogenic (49.1%) tumors were the most common histological entities. Tumor size, location, histology, deep parotid lobe involvement, and proximity to great vessels or to the skull base were the deciding factors in selecting the surgical approach. The factors considered to select the surgical approach do not seem to have a correlation with the outcome in terms of neurological sequalae ( p = 0.106). Tumors with neurogenic histology have significantly increased chances of developing neurological complication (OR 6.07; p = 0.001). Conclusion Neurologic complications are significantly associated with neurogenic benign tumors rather than surgical approach.

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

3.8
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