4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Squamous cell carcinoma of the eyelids

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 86, 期 10, 页码 1161-1165

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.86.10.1161

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To review the clinical features, management, and outcomes of surgical treatment of eyelid squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods: A retrospective review of all eyelid SCCs treated between 1992 and 2001. Results: 51 cases were identified in 50 patients. Patient ages ranged from 26 to 93 years, with a mean age of 65 years. 33 patients were male and 17 were female. The lesion was found on the lower lid in 31 cases, upper lid in Five cases, lateral canthus in six cases, and medial canthus in nine cases. Perineural invasion was found in four patients, and orbital invasion in three patients. Recurrence occurred in one patient. Treatment was by complete excision with histological confirmation of clear margins. Exenteration was required in three patients. No patients developed lymph node or distant metastases. One patient, who declined treatment, died as a result of the tumour. Mean follow up was 31.1 months. Conclusions: Eyelid SCC is a relatively uncommon, but potentially fatal disease. However, if detected early and treated adequately, the prognosis is generally excellent. Treatment by complete excision with histological confirmation of tumour clearance is recommended. Perineural spread is an adverse prognostic sign, which may require postoperative radiotherapy, Orbital invasion is a rare complication but, if recognised early, can be treated effectively with exenteration. Because presentation varies and histological examination is required For accurate diagnosis, any suspicious lesion occurring on the eyelids should be excised or biopsied, All patients with eyelid SCC should be advised of the risk of recurrent or new tumours and encouraged to attend lifelong follow up. Prevention remains of prime importance in minimising the morbidity and mortality of these lesions.

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