Ependymomas of the spinal cord and cauda equina: An analysis of 26 cases and a review of the literature.
Аннотация
STUDY
DESIGN
Retrospective review.
OBJECTIVES
To clarify the clinical features of patients with spinal ependymomas and to compare the clinical results between the patients in whom microsurgical technique and spinal cord monitoring were used intraoperatively and the patients in whom they were not used.
SETTING
Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
METHODS
Twenty-six consecutive patients with spinal ependymomas were treated surgically between 1958 and 1995. All patients underwent tumor resection through a posterior approach. Complete tumor resection was possible in 15 patients (57. 7%), and subtotal tumor resection (more than 90%) was done in two patients (7.7%). Only a partial tumor resection (less than 90%) was performed in the remainder of the patients (34.6%). The operative results of the patients were evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scoring System (JOA score) and its recovery rate.
RESULTS
The overall average recovery rate was 18.3%. The mean recovery rate was 14.4% in cervical lesion, 11.1% in thoracic lesion and 40% in lumbar lesion. The recovery rate of eight patients with cervical ependymomas who underwent tumor resection under both microscopic surgical procedure and intraoperative spinal cord monitoring was 37.1% although the recovery rate of the rest of the patients was -1.6%. There was a statistical difference between the two groups (P<0.02). The survival rate of patients following complete excision was statistically better compared to that of patients after incomplete resection.
CONCLUSION
Both microsurgical technique and spinal cord monitoring are indispensable to achieve total removal of ependymomas and to obtain improvement of neurological recovery.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
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.