4.1 Article

U-shaped durotomy for midline posterior fossa tumor removal: technical note and evaluation of results

期刊

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 2299-2303

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-018-3922-7

关键词

Posterior fossa midline tumors; Dura opening; CSF fistula; Duraplasty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The classical dura opening for midline posterior fossa tumors in and around the 4th ventricle and the craniocervical junction is a Y-shaped incision. Several potential problems are associated with this technique. We used a technical variant, the U-shaped durotomy, previously described by Rhoton, offering several advantages. We report on the surgical results of the technique in a consecutive series of posterior fossa cases in children and adolescents. Methods In all midline posterior fossa approaches, a U-shaped dural incision is standard in our institution. All cases were retrospectively analyzed regarding hydrocephalus, placement of EVD or lumbar drain, need for ETV or shunting during follow-up, and frequency of duraplasty, of pseudomeningocele, of primary watertight dural closure, of CSF leakage, and of venous sinus hemorrhage at opening. Results Fifty pediatric patients were included. In all easy occipital sinus, control was achieved and no additional dural retraction for tumor exposure required. In 49/50 patients, a primary watertight dura closure without duraplasty was achieved, also in re-do cases with previous U-shaped opening. One patient received a small periostium graft after having had a duraplasty following Y-shaped opening beforehand. No CSF fistula ever occurred and no pseudomeningocele was detected in any follow-up MRI. Conclusion The U-shaped durotomy for dorsal midline approach to the 4th ventricle and craniocervical junction provides wide exposure to all tumors and allows for primary and watertight dura closure. Compared to published results and complications of classic Y-shaped dural opening, this method of durotomy and closure seems most advantageous.

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