Dergiler / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2020 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 5

Surgical Results of Brainstem Cavernous Malformation Haemorrhage

Sayfa
768–775
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In thepresence of all these factors, the prognosis of patients will be better.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:AIM: To evaluate surgical treatment options, complications and neurological outcomes of patients with cavernous malformations(CMs) in the pons and medulla oblongata.MATERIAL and METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 25 brain stem CMs that we operated between 2009 and 2019.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Weoperated all cases in the first month with suboccipital retrosigmoid and paramedian approach.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In thepresence of all these factors, the prognosis of patients will be better.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2009 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

AIM: To evaluate surgical treatment options, complications and neurological outcomes of patients with cavernous malformations(CMs) in the pons and medulla oblongata.MATERIAL and METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 25 brain stem CMs that we operated between 2009 and 2019. Weoperated all cases in the first month with suboccipital retrosigmoid and paramedian approach. The cases were evaluated concerningtheir demographic characteristics, lesion characteristics, radiological imaging results, surgical approach and neurological status.RESULTS: Overall, 15 patients had CMs in the pons and 10 in the medulla oblongata. The mean age of the patients was 33.48years, and the cases included 15 male and 10 female patients. The average modified Rankin Score (mRS) score had a mean of 2.36and median of 2 at the time of admission (Table I). The mean follow-up period was 4.64 years (1–10 years). In the last follow-upassessment, the average mRS score was mean = 1.84 and median = 1. In addition, 14 (56%) patients recovered, 7 (28%) did notshow any changes, 3 (12%) got worse, and 1 (4%) died. In our case series, the admission complaints were cranial nerve paralysis(24%) in 6 cases, nausea and vomiting in 1 (4%) and hemiparesis in 17 (68%).CONCLUSION: Experience, correct surgical approach and good knowledge of neuroanatomy are important in brainstem CMhaemorrhages. Imaging methods, neuronavigation and neuromonitoring use are essential for patients undergoing surgery. In thepresence of all these factors, the prognosis of patients will be better.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ARSLAN, A., ÖZSOY, K. M., OLGUNER, S. K., AÇIK, V., İSTEMEN, İ., ARSLAN, B., GEZERCAN, Y., ÖKTEN, A. İ. (2020). Surgical Results of Brainstem Cavernous Malformation Haemorrhage. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 5, 768–775. https://ajindex.com/articles/404344

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (3)

  1. Chen LH, Zhang HT, Chen L, Liu LX, Xu RX: Minimally invasive resection of brainstem cavernous malformations: Surgical approaches and clinical experiences with 38 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 116:72-79, 2014 2. De Aguiar PHP, Zicarelli CAM, Isolan G, Antunes A, Aires R, Georgeto SM, Tahara A, Haddad F: Brainstem cavernomas: A surgical challenge. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 10:67-73, 2012 3. Fritschi JA, Reulen HJ, Spetzler RF, Zabramski JM: Cavernous malformations of the brain stem. A review of 139 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 130:35-46, 1994 4. Gui S, Meng G, Xiao X, Wu Z, Zhang J: Surgical management of brainstem cavernous malformation: Report of 67 patients. World Neurosurgery 122:e1162-e1171, 2019 5. Hauck EF, Barnett SL, White JA, Samson D: Symptomatic brainstem cavernomas. Neurosurgery 64:61-70
  2. discussion 70-71, 2009 6. Heffez DS, Zinreich SJ, Long DM: Surgical resection of intrinsic brain stem lesions: An overview. Neurosurgery 27:789-797
  3. discussion 797-798, 1990 7. Januszewski J, Albert L, Black K, Dehdashti AR: The usefulness of diffusion tensor imaging and tractography in surgery of brainstem cavernous malformations. World Neurosurg 93:377-388, 2016 8. Kearns KN, Chen CJ, Tvrdik P, Park MS, Kalani MYS: Outcomes of surgery for brainstem cavernous malformations: A systematic review. Stroke 50:2964-2966, 2019 9. Li D, Hao SY, Tang J, Xiao XR, Jia GJ, Wu Z, Zhang LW, Zhang JT: Surgical management of pediatric brainstem cavernous malformations. J Neurosurg Pediatr 13:484-502, 2014 10. Li D, Yang Y, Hao SY, Wang L, Tang J, Xiao XR, Zhou H, Jia GJ, Wu Z, Zhang LW, Zhang JT: Hemorrhage risk, surgical management, and functional outcome of brainstem cavernous malformations. J Neurosurg 119:996-1008, 2013 11. Lee CC, Pan DHC, Chung WY, Liu KD, Yang HC, Wu HM, Guo WY, Shih YH: Brainstem cavernous malformations: The role of Gamma Knife surgery. J Neurosurg 117 Suppl:164-169, 2012 12. Mathiesen T, Edner G, Kihlström L: Deep and brainstem cavernomas: A consecutive 8-year series. J Neurosurg 99:31- 37, 2003 13. McCormick WF: The pathology of vascular (“arteriovenous”) malformations. J Neurosurg 24:807-816, 1966 14. Park K, Kim JW, Chung HT, Paek SH, Kim DG: Long-term outcome of gamma knife radiosurgery for symptomatic brainstem cavernous malformation. World Neurosurg 116: e1054-e1059, 2018 15. Porter RW, Detwiler PW, Spetzler RF, Lawton MT, Baskin JJ, Derksen PT, Zabramski JM: Cavernous malformations of the brainstem: Experience with 100 patients. J Neurosurg 90