4.4 Article

Transsphenoidal pseudocapsule-based extracapsular resection for pituitary adenomas

期刊

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
卷 153, 期 4, 页码 799-806

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-011-0961-1

关键词

Pituitary adenoma; Extracapsular resection; Transsphenoidal approach

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [Y2008C64, Y2006C75]
  2. Shandong Provincial Outstanding Research Award Fund for Young Scientists [2007BS03050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past several years, increasing attention has been paid to the utility of a pseudocapsule in transphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas. However, prior studies focused more on the histological structure of the pseudocapsule and surgical technique. The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall therapeutic effectiveness of transsphenoidal pseudocapsule-based extracapsular resection for pituitary adenomas. Between January 2004 and October 2007, 78 patients with pituitary adenomas underwent transsphenoidal pseudocapsule-based extracapsular removal surgery (extracapsular resection group, ER group). During the same period, 64 patients underwent transsphenoidal intracapsular resection operations (intracapsular resection group, IR group). Complete resection rates were achieved in 90.6%, 84.6% and 65.5%, 52.6% of modified Hardy types II and III in the ER and IR groups, showing a significant difference (both P < 0.05). Statistical significance in the remission rates was also found between the two groups with modified Hardy types II and III, respectively (both P < 0.05). Complications occurred in 29.5% of the ER group and 26.6% of the IR group, with no difference between groups (P > 0.05). The recurrence rate of the ER group (2.56%) was lower than that of the IR group (14.06%). The transsphenoidal pseudocapsule-based extracapsular resection approach provides a more effective and safe alternative compared to the traditional intracapsular one because of its higher tumor removal and remission rates, and lower recurrence rate.

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

4.4
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