4.6 Article

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline on Preoperative Imaging Assessment of Patients With Suspected Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 79, 期 4, 页码 E524-E526

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001391

关键词

Imaging; MRI; Nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas; Preoperative

资金

  1. Congress of Neurological Surgeons
  2. Section on Tumors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The authors reviewed published articles pertaining to the preoperative imaging evaluation of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) and formulated recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To provide an exhaustive review of published articles pertaining to the preoperative imaging evaluation of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was queried for studies investigating imaging for the preoperative evaluation of pituitary adenomas. RESULTS: From an initial search of 5598 articles, 122 articles were evaluated in detail and included in this article. Based on analysis of these articles, the recommendations are as follows: (1) High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (level II) is recommended as the standard for preoperative assessment of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas, but may be supplemented with CT (level III) and fluoroscopy (level III). (2) Although there are promising results suggesting the utility of magnetic resonance spectroscopy, magnetic resonance perfusion, positron emission tomography, and single-photon emission computed tomography, there is insufficient evidence to make formal recommendations pertaining to their clinical applications. CONCLUSION: The authors identified 122 articles that form the basis of recommendations for preoperative imaging evaluation of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. The full guidelines document for this chapter can be located at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-non-functioning-pituitary-adenomas/Chapter_ 2.

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

4.6
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