4.6 Article

Endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: a good and safe primary treatment option for Cushing's disease, even in case of macroadenomas or invasive adenomas

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 169, 期 3, 页码 329-337

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-13-0325

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Although the endoscopic technique of transsphenoidal pituitary surgery (TS) has been widely adopted, reports on its results in Cushing's disease (CD) are still scarce and no studies have investigated long-term recurrence rates. This is the largest endoscopic series published till now. Objective: To gain insight into the role of endoscopic TS as a primary treatment option for CD, especially in patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-negative CD and (invasive) macroadenomas. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Patients and methods: The medical records of 86 patients with CD who underwent endoscopic TS were examined. Data on preoperative and postoperative evaluation, perioperative complications, and follow-up were collected. Remission was defined as disappearance of clinical symptoms with a fasting plasma cortisol level <= 50 nmol/l either basal or after 1 mg dexamethasone. Results: The remission rate in different adenoma subclasses varied significantly: 60% in MRI-negative CD (n=20), 83% in microadenomas (n=35), 94% in noninvasive macroadenomas (n=16), and 40% in macroadenomas that invaded the cavernous sinus (n=15). The recurrence rate was 16% after 71 +/- 39 months of follow-up (meanGS +/- D., range 10-165 months). Conclusions: Endoscopic TS is a safe and effective treatment for all patients with CD. Recurrence rates after endoscopic TS are comparable with those reported for microscopic TS. Our data suggest that in patients with noninvasive and invasive macroadenomas, the endoscopic technique of TS should be the treatment of choice as remission rates seem to be higher than those reported for microscopic TS, although no comparative study has been performed.

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