4.1 Article

Health-related quality of life in patients with skull base tumours

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 16-20

出版社

CARFAX PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1080/02688690120114183

关键词

quality of life; SF-36; skull base tumour; vestibular schwannoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the investigation was to report on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients diagnosed with skull base tumours using the Short Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36). Those patients suffering with vestibular schwannoma were examined to determine the effect facial nerve function had on their quality of life. It took place at the tertiary referral centre at the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. A prospective study of 70 consecutive patients was taken, who harboured the following tumours: 54 vestibular schwannomas, 13 meningiomas, two haemangioblastomas and one hypoglossal schwannoma. Patients were interviewed using the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Facial nerve function was assessed in those patients who had vestibular schwannomas. The entire cohort of live skull base patients were assessed after a median follow-up time of 38.4 months. Patients with vestibular schwannoma treated conservatively with interval MRI had a quality of life similar to the normal population. Those who underwent surgery had a significant difference in two of the SF-36 domains. No statistically significant correlation was found at final assessment between the degree of facial nerve functioning and any of the domains of SF-36. Patients with non-vestibular tumours had an impaired HRQoL in seven of the eight domains. Patients with skull base tumours have a significant impairment of their HRQoL. A conservative policy of follow up with interval MRI for patients with small vestibular schwannomas may therefore be more appropriate to preserve their HRQoL. Facial nerve outcome has little influence on quality of life in vestibular schwannoma patients.

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

4.1
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