4.4 Article

Incidence of cerebrospinal fluid leak after microsurgical removal of vestibular schwannomas

期刊

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
卷 144, 期 10, 页码 979-982

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-002-0981-y

关键词

vestibular schwannoma; suboccipital approach; CSF leak; continuous external lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak still remains an unresolved problem after microsurgical removal of vestibular schwannomas (VS). Methods. 14 (6%) Cases of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea and 3 cases with subcutaneous retro-auricular CSF collection, occurring in a series of 224 patients operated on by the senior author (JMG) on VS between 1989-2000 via the suboccipital retrosiginoidal approach were studied retrospectively. Prophylaxis of CSF leak was usually attempted by packing the unroofed posterior wall of internal acoustic meatus with muscle. The mastoid air cells were packed first with collagen then with muscle and bone dust. Results. All CSF leaks were diagnosed within 2-7 days after surgery. We found no relation to tumour size. Treatment was initiated in all patients with continuous external lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CELCFD) for 7 days. In 11 cases with CSF rhinorrhea and all cases with retro-auricular CSF collection, the CSF leak was stopped. However, in 3 cases the CSF leak persisted despite the lumbar drain. These patients were operated on again with sealing the JAM and the mastoid cells again with muscle and collagen. No recurrence of CSF leak was noted after the second operation. There was no case of late onset CSF leak during the follow-up of one year. Conclusion. Although CSF leak is a common complication (6%) after vestibular schwannoma removal, aggressive treatment is required only in a few cases (1%). Most of the cases are successfully treated by (CELCFD). The suboccipital approach offers an advantage of opening only a part of mastoid air cells, which are in our opinion the second most common site of CSF leakage.

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