4.5 Article

Diagnosis and Outcomes of 341 Patients with Cushing's Disease Following Transsphenoid Surgery: A Single-Center Experience

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 E75-E80

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.105

关键词

Cushing's disease; Inferior petrosal sinus sampling; Transsphenoid surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Transsphenoid surgery (TSS) is a standard treatment modality for Cushing's disease (CD). However, postoperative remission and recurrence rates vary among studies. Here we analyze the diagnosis and outcomes of 341 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of CD undergoing TSS in a single center over a 3-year period. METHODS: A total of 341 patients were enrolled. Clinical manifestations, imaging results, laboratory workups, and results of inferior petrosal sinus sampling (IPSS) were obtained. Outcomes were obtained with a follow-up length from 12 to 36 months. RESULTS: The tumors were mainly of Knosp level 0 (68.57%). The sensitivity of MRI, combined low-dose and high-dose dexamethasone suppression test and IPSS in the diagnosis were 90.83%, 88.53% and 95.57%. The concordance of lateralization by MRI and by IPSS were 78.96% and 61.34% compared with surgery. 2. Outcomes. The overall remission rate was 78.89% (N=289). Patients undergoing the first TSS (N=234) had a remission rate of 86.36% for macroadenomas (N=22) and 83.2% for microadenomas (N=212). Patients undergoing a second TSS (N=55) had lower rate of remission of 50.00% for macroadenomas (N=6) and 61.22% for microadenomas (N=49). For patients with invasive tumors, the overall remission rate was 26.92% (N=26), 20.0% for macroadenomas (n=20) and 50.0% for microadenomas (N=6). The recurrence rate was 2.42%. CONCLUSIONS: Pituitary imaging, endocrinological workups and IPSS are sensitive and specific diagnostic modalities for CD, but the lateralization efficacy of MRI and IPSS are unsatisfactory. A higher rate of remission relies on gross resections of tumors.

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