4.2 Article

Extracranial head and neck schwannomas - A 10-year review

期刊

AURIS NASUS LARYNX
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 353-359

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2007.01.006

关键词

schwannoma; extracranial; head and neck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To present our experience in managing a large case series of extracranial schwannomas highlighting presenting features, diagnostic difficulties, and outcomes associated with surgical treatment of these tumours. Method: A retrospective case note study of 31 patients with a diagnosis of extracranial schwannoma seen in the Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery at Southmead Hospital, a tertiary referral centre and University hospital between 1 June 1993 and 30 May 2003. Results: The commonest anatomical location was in the neck (42%) and an isolated neck lump was the commonest presentation (77%). Pressure symptoms were the next most common mode of presentation, and were often a helpful indicator of the nerve of origin. The nerve of origin was identified in 47% of patients who underwent surgery. Immunohistochemistry was a useful tool in the diagnosis of these tumours and magnetic resonance imaging was the preferred imaging technique to delineate their extent. The most significant postoperative morbidity was associated with the schwannomas of the vagus nerve, sympathetic chain, hypoglossal nerve, glossopharyngeal nerve and the facial nerve. Conclusion: Schwannomas can present in a wide variety of sites within the head and neck region and therefore it is important that otolaryngologists and head--neck surgeons are familiar with the more common sites of presentation and the potential difficulties associated with the diagnosis and management of these tumours. Adequate imaging should be carried out preoperatively to gain as much information as possible about the individual tumour and allow informed patient counseling regarding to potential risks and morbidity of surgical intervention. (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

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

4.2
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