首页> 外文期刊>Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery: Official Journal of the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery >Stereotactic biopsy for brainstem tumors: Comparison of transcerebellar with transfrontal approach
【24h】

Stereotactic biopsy for brainstem tumors: Comparison of transcerebellar with transfrontal approach

机译:脑干肿瘤的立体定向活检:小脑与经额叶入路的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: An important aspect of evaluating patients submitted to stereotactic biopsy of the brainstem is the trajectory used. The literature describes two principal approaches: the suboccipital transcerebellar and the transfrontal; however, no studies exist comparing these two techniques. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare diagnosis success rates and complications between the suboccipital transcerebellar and transfrontal trajectories. Methods: The study evaluated 142 patients submitted to stereotactic biopsy. The patients presented brainstem tumors in the following areas: pons (n = 31), midbrain (n = 36), medulla (n = 2), pons-medulla (n = 30), pons-midbrain (n = 33), and midbrain-pons-medulla (n = 10). On 123 patients, the transfrontal approach was used, and on 19 the suboccipital transcerebellar approach. Results: Comparing success rates between the two approaches, it was observed that in the group of patients submitted to the transfrontal approach, 95.1% (117 cases) were successful, while in those submitted to the suboccipital transcerebellar approach, 84.2% (16 cases) were successful. Despite a higher success rate among patients in the first group, the difference was not statistically significant. Regarding complications, in patients who were biopsied via the transfrontal trajectory, the morbidity rate was 9.8% (12 cases), while in patients submitted to the suboccipital transcerebellar approach, the morbidity rate was 5.3% (1 case) and the mortality rate 5.3% (1 case). Conclusions: This study verified a higher diagnosis rate in patients submitted to the transfrontal approach than in those submitted to the suboccipital transcerebellar approach (95.1 vs. 84.2%); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Regarding complications, the rate was similar in both groups of patients.
机译:背景:评估接受脑干立体定向活检的患者的重要方面是所使用的轨迹。文献描述了两种主要方法:枕下小脑和经额叶。但是,尚无研究比较这两种技术。目的:本研究的目的是比较枕下小脑经和额叶运动的诊断成功率和并发症。方法:该研究评估了142例接受立体定向活检的患者。患者在以下区域出现脑干肿瘤:脑桥(n = 31),中脑(n = 36),延髓(n = 2),脑桥延髓(n = 30),脑桥-中脑(n = 33)和中脑桥髓(n = 10)。在123例患者中,采用了额叶入路,在19例中采用了枕下小脑入路。结果:比较两种方法的成功率,观察到在接受经额额叶入路的患者中,成功率为95.1%(117例),而在接受枕下小脑途径入路的患者中,成功率为84.2%(16例)是成功的。尽管第一组患者的成功率较高,但差异无统计学意义。在并发症方面,经经额叶活检的患者的发病率为9.8%(12例),而接受枕下小脑入路的患者的发病率为5.3%(1例),死亡率为5.3% (1例)。结论:这项研究证实了经额叶入路的患者的诊断率要高于枕下经小脑入路的患者(95.1 vs. 84.2%);但是,差异在统计上并不显着。关于并发症,两组患者的发生率相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号