Journals / Journal of Neurological Sciences (Turkish) / 2014 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2

Miyelomeningosel ve Meningosel : 43 Olgulu Kliniko-Patolojik Bir Çalışma

Myelomeningoceles and Meningoceles: A Clinicopathologic Study of 43 Cases

Pages
335–345
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Definition of thepathological aspects of dysraphism will potentiate the understanding of these anomalies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of the study both meningocele and myelomeningocele reviewing theclinical and pathological findings as well as to discuss the pathological diagnosis.Material and methods: Meningocel and myelomeningocele were retrived from thepathology files.
📊
Key Findings & Data:All sections fromeach case were reviewed.Results: There were 34 cases of myelomeningocele, 9 cases of meningocele.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Definition of thepathological aspects of dysraphism will potentiate the understanding of these anomalies.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the study both meningocele and myelomeningocele reviewing theclinical and pathological findings as well as to discuss the pathological diagnosis.Material and methods: Meningocel and myelomeningocele were retrived from thepathology files. Forty three cases with detailed clinical and radiological data were selected.Masson's trichrome performed on original sections from paraffin blocks. All sections fromeach case were reviewed.Results: There were 34 cases of myelomeningocele, 9 cases of meningocele. F/M ratio was1.2 to 1. The age range of patients were from newborn to 4 months. 90% of cases were in thelumbosacral region. 31 cases of myelomeningoceles, and 3 cases of meningoceles werehydrocephalus. Chiari II malformation was seen in 88% of myelomeningocels and in 22% ofmeningoceles. Three patients had a clubfoot deformity. Microscopically, epithelial changesincluded ulceration, loss of appendages. Mesodermal findings included fibrosis (90% ofcases), adipose tissue (62%), hypertrophic smooth muscle (18%), skeletal muscle (4%) andincreased numbers of blood vessels (79%). Subepidermal calcification was noted in 2 cases.Neuroectodermal features, neuropil-like matrix and ependymal lining were noted in 34 and 15cases respectively. Nerve fibers were identified varied from easily identifiable largemyelinated nerve trunks to slightly increased numbers of fibers in 83% of the cases.Conclusion: Both clinical and pathological differences were seen among myelomeningoceles.These malformations involve ectoderm, neuroectoderm, and mesoderm. Definition of thepathological aspects of dysraphism will potentiate the understanding of these anomalies.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, meningosel ve miyelomeningosel olgularının klinik ve patolojikbulgularını gözden geçirmek yanında patolojik tanıyı tartışmaktır.Gereç ve yöntem: Meningosel ve miyelomeningosel patoloji dosyalarından elde edilmiştir.Detaylı klinik ve radyolojik verileri bulunan kırk üç olgu seçildi. Masson trikrom boyasıolguların parafin bloklarına uygulandı. Elde edilen tüm kesitler incelendi.Bulgular: 34 miyelomeningosel, 9 meningosel olgusu vardır. Kadın /erkek oranı 1,2-1'dir.Hastalar yenidoğan ile 4 ay yaş aralığındaydı. Olguların % 90'ı lumbosakral bölgedeyerleşmişdi. 31 miyelomeningosel ve meningosel olgusunda hidrosefali vardı. Chiari IImalformasyonu miyelomeningosellerde % 88 ve meningosel olgularında %22 oranındagörüldü. Üç hastada içe dönük ayak deformitesi vardı. Mikroskopik olarak, epiteldeğişiklikleri ülserasyon ve deri eklerinin kaybı idi. Fibrozis (vakaların % 90'ı) , yağ dokusu(% 62), hipertrofik düz kas (% 18), iskelet kası ( % 4) ve kan damarlarında sayıca artış (% 79 ) mezodermal bulguları oluşturdu. Subepidermal kalsifikasyon 2 olguda tespit edildi.Nöroektodermal özelliklerden nöropil benzeri matris ve ependimal yapı sırasıyla 34 ve 15olguda saptandı. Sinir lifleri vakaların % 83'ünde, hafif artmasından, kolayca farkedilebilenbüyük miyelinli sinir gövdeleri oluşturmasına kadar çeşitli şekillerde görülmüştür.Sonuç: Miyelomeningosel olguları arasında hem klinik hem de patolojik farklılıklar görüldü.Bu malformasyonlar ektoderm, nöroektoderm ve mezoderm içermektedir. Disrafizminpatolojik yönlerinin tanınması bu anomalilerin anlaşılmasını güçlendirecektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARABAGLI, H., KARABAGLI, P., GURCAN, T., CELIK, Z. E. (2022). Miyelomeningosel ve Meningosel : 43 Olgulu Kliniko-Patolojik Bir Çalışma. Journal of Neurological Sciences (Turkish), Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2, 335–345. https://ajindex.com/articles/565061

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Adzick NS, Walsh DS. Myelomeningocele: prenatal diagnosis, pathophysiology and management Semin Pediatr Surg. 2003;12(3):168-74 2. Berry AD 3rd, Patterson JW. Meningoceles, meningomyeloceles, and encephaloceles: a neuro-dermatopathologic study of 132 cases J Cutan Pathol.1991;18(3):164-77 3. Cohen AR, Robinson S. Early Management of Myelomeningocele. In: Pediatric Neurosurgery. Surgery of the Developing Nervous System. Ed, McLoneDG,W.B. Saunders, 2001, pp:241-59 4. Etus V, Ilbay K, Akansel G, Ceylan S, Ceylan S. Double myelomeningocele in a neonate: Case report and review of the literature Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2006;108(6):595-600 5. Frischhut B, Stöckl B, Landauer F, Krismer M, Menardi G. Foot def ormities in adolescents and young adults with spina bif ida J Pediatr Orthop B. 2000;9(3):161-9 6. Hamada H, Kurimoto M, Hayashi N, Hirashima Y, Matsumura N, Endo S. Intramedullary spinal teratoma with spina bif ida Childs Nerv Syst. 2001;17(1-2):109-11 7. Harrist TJ, Gang DL, Kleinman GM, Mihm MC Jr, Hendren WH. Unusual sacrococcygeal embryologic malf ormations with cutaneous manif estations Arch Dermatol. 1982 Sep;118(9):643-8 8. Jun C, Burdick B. An unusual f ibro-osseous lesion of the brain Case report. J Neurosurg. 1984 Jun;60(6):1308-11 9. Khanna G, Mishra K, Agarwal S, Sharma S. Congenital spinal lipomas—tumor versus hamartoma Indian J Pediatr. 1999;66(6):940-4 10. Kumar R, Singh SN. Spinal dysraphism: trends in northern India Pediatr Neurosurg. 2003 Mar;38(3):133-45 11. Lellouch-Tubiana A, Zerah M, Catala M, Brousse N, Kahn AP. Congenital intraspinal lipomas: histological analysis of 234 cases and review of the literature Pediatr Dev Pathol. 1999;2(4):346-52 12. Mitchell LE, Adzick NS, Melchionne J, Pasquariello PS, Sutton LN, Whitehead AS. Spina bif ida Lancet. 2004 Nov 20- 26;364(9448):1885-95 13. Molleston MC, Roth KA, Wippold FJ 2nd, Grubb RL Jr. Tethered cord syndrome f rom a choristoma of müllerian origin. Case report J Neurosurg. 1991;74(3):497-500 14. Nallegowda M, Singh U, Shivananda, Shukla R, Kabra M. A case of dextrocardia, radial ray malf ormation and renal anomaly Clin Dysmorphol. 2003;12(4):285-6 15. Narverud SF, Ramli NB, Chandran H, Ganesan D. Calcif ied pseudomeningocele of the lumbar spine: a review Eur Spine J. 2013 May;22 Suppl 3:S443-9 16. Nishio S, Morioka T, Hikino S, Fukui M. Cervical (myelo)meningocoele: report of 2 cases J Clin Neurosci. 2001;8(6):586-7 17. Pang D, Dias MS. Cervical myelomeningoceles Neurosurgery. 1993;3