MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.4103/2152-7806.159489

Медицинская библиотека · Surgical neurology international · 2015

Large and giant skull base meningiomas: The role of radical surgical removal.

da Silva Carlos Eduardo, de Freitas Paulo Eduardo Peixoto

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

The large and giant skull base meningiomas are challenging lesions, and the involvement of crucial neurovascular structures needs the surgical removal as the primordial treatment. The authors report on a series of patients with large and giant skull base meningiomas who were treated with the goal of radical removal.

METHODS

A retrospective study including 49 patients with large and giant skull base meningiomas was carried out. Tumors presenting 3 cm or larger were included.

RESULTS

The meningiomas in the sample included the following types: 10 olfactory groove, 8 sphenoorbital, 8 petroclival, 8 tentorial, 4 clinoidal, 4 cavernous sinus, 3 temporal floor, 2 tuberculum sellae and 2 foramen magnum. The average age was 53 years, the mean follow-up period was 52 months, Simpson Grades I and II were obtained in 75.5%. The overall mortality was 5%. Transient cranial nerve deficits occurred in 32% with definite cranial nerve lesion in 18%. Cerebrospinal fluid leak occurred in 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical treatment is a mandatory option for large and giant skull base meningiomas. The radical removal is achievable and should be considered an alternative with a good outcome and an acceptable morbidity for such challenge lesions.

Для цитирования: da Silva Carlos Eduardo, de Freitas Paulo Eduardo Peixoto. Large and giant skull base meningiomas: The role of radical surgical removal.. Surgical neurology international. 2015. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.159489.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.