Endonasal Versus Supraorbital Keyhole Removal of Craniopharynglomas and Tuberoulumsellae Meningi
- 格式:pdf
- 大小:62.52 KB
- 文档页数:1
江耿思,等.中枢神经系统炎性假瘤的临床相关特点 69
[5】
[6】
[7]
and CT manifestations with histopathologic comparison.
[J].AJNR Am J Neuroradiol,1996,17(3):515—521.
Watanabe A,Ishii R,Okamura H,et a1.Magnetic
resonance imaging of non—specific inflammatory
granulation involving the skull base一一two case reports.
[J].Neurol Med Chir(Tokyo),1998,38(2):104-106. Tsutsumi Y,Kanamori H,Kawamura T,et a1. Inflammatory pseudotumor of the brain following hematopoietc stem cell transplantation.[J].Bone Marrow Transplant,2005,35(1 1):1 123—1 124. 章华,赵素萍,蒋卫红.等.颅底炎性假瘤的诊断和 : : 每e 啤 3寻s寻 外文 [8] [9]
[1O]
治疗一附2例报道【D].中国耳鼻咽喉颅底外科,
2007,13(3):193一l96.
Cherukupally S R,Mankafious L A,Faquin W,et a1.
Pediatric non—orbital pseudotumor of the head and neck.
[J].Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol,2003,67(6):649—653.
Friedman H S,Tuori S L,Hatten H J,et a1.
Inflammatory lesion mimicking a metastatic
ependymoma明.Neurosurgery,1991,29(4):617-620.
Tresser N,Roll C,Cohen M.P1asma cell granulomas of
the brain:pediatric case presentation and review of the
literature.[33.Childs Nerv Syst,1996,12(1):52—57.
劫
Endonasal Versus Supraorbital Keyhole Removal of Craniopharynglomas and
Tuberoulumsellae Meningiomas
Neurosurgery.2009 Mar 11.
Fatemi N,Dusick JR,de Paiva]Veto MA Malkasian D Kelly DE
Brain Tumor Center,John Wayne Cancer Institute,Saint John's Health Center,Santa Monica, rnia(Fatemi)
(Kelly)Div ̄ion of Neurosurgery,David CCf ̄.School of Medicine,University of C越洳rnia,Los A ngeles,Los
A ngeles,C越蜘rnia(Dusick)(ae Paiva New)(Malkasian)Disciplina de Neurocirurgia,Universidode Federal,
São Paulo,Brazil de Paiva NEW).
OBJECTIVE:Endonasal and supraorbital”eyebrow”craniotomies are increasingly being used to remove craniopharyngiomas and
tuberculum sellae meningionms.Herein,we assess the relative advantages,disadvantages,and selection criteria of these 2 keyhole
approaches.METHODS:All consecutive patients who had endonasal or sup,'aorbital removal of a eraniopharyngioma or tubereulum
sellae meningionm were analyzed.RESULTS:Of 43 patients,22 had a eraniopharyngioma(1 8 endonasal,4 supraorbita1),and 2 1 had a
meningionm(12 endonasal,7 supraorbital,2 both routes);33 had prior surgery.Craniopharyngiomas were primarily retrochiasmal in
location in 78 of endonasal cases versus 25 of supraorbital cases =0.08).Meningiomas were larger when approached by the
supraorbital mute versus the endonasal route f33+/-1 0 versus 25+/一8 111In.respectively;P=O.008).Endoscopy was used in 84 of
endonasal approaches and in 3 1 of supraorbital approaches fP=0.oou.of patients having first—time surgery for a eraniopharyngionm
(r/,=14)or meningioma(凡=1 5),total/near total removal was achieved in 83 and 8O of patients by the endonasal route and in 50 and
80 of patients by the supraorbital route.respectively.Vision improved in 87 and 70 of patients who had surgery by an endonasal
versus supraorbital route,respectively(P=O-3).Visual deterioration occurred in 2 patients with meningiomas,1 by endonasal(7),and
1 by supraorbital(1 1)remova1.The endonasal approach was associated with a higher rate of postoperative eerebrospinal fluid leaks(1 6
versus 0;P=0.3),4 of 5 of which OCCUlTed in patients with meningioma.CONCLUSION:The endonasal route is preferred for removal
of most retmehiasmal craniopharyngiomas,whereas the supraorbital route is recomnlended for meningiomas larger than 30 to 35 nlnl OF
with growth beyond the supraclinoid carotid arteries.For smaller midline tumors,either approach can be used,depending on surgeon
experience and tumor anatomy.Compared with traditional craniotomies,the major limitation of both approaches is a narrow surgical
corridor.The endonasal approach has the added challenges of restricted lateral suprasellar access,a greater need for endoscopy,and a
more demanding cranial base I‘epair.