4.4 Article

Surgical removal of growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas with intensive microsurgical pseudocapsule resection results in complete remission of acromegaly

期刊

NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 201-208

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-005-0384-7

关键词

pituitary adenoma; acromegaly; pseudocapsule; boundary; interface; endonasal approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although some investigators recommended surgical removal of the borders between pituitary adenoma and the surrounding normal pituitary gland, there is so far little documentation of how intensive dissection of the border zone affects the actual clinical remission rate of pituitary adenomas. We investigated the precise histological characteristics of the boundary, using surgical specimens from patients who underwent intensive resection of microsurgical pseudocapsule of growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenomas. Furthermore, we compared the remission rate of acromegaly between subjects with (Group 1) and without (Group 2) intensive resection of microsurgical pseudocapsule in order to correlate the histological complete resection and endocrinological remission. Histologically, most adenomas were in direct contact with normal pituitary gland that formed an increased fibrous component facing the adenoma, without a true histological pseudocapsule. It was impossible to dissect the tumor at exactly the tumor-normal pituitary interface for the whole extent of the pituitary adenoma during surgery, and complete removal of the tumor inevitably included a portion of normal tissue (microsurgical pseudocapsule). The biochemical remission rate was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (90.0 vs 61.1%), and Group 1 showed no additional postoperative pituitary hypofunction. The present results suggested that intensive resection of the microsurgical pseudocapsule is essential to accomplish histological and endocrinological total resection of the GH-secreting pituitary adenomas for remission of acromegaly.

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