4.4 Article

Proof of principle: supramarginal resection of cerebral metastases in eloquent brain areas

期刊

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
卷 154, 期 11, 页码 1981-1986

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-012-1463-5

关键词

Awake surgery; Cerebral metastases; Resection; Function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerebral metastases are not sharply delimitatable; therefore, microsurgical circumferential stripping of intracerebral metastases is often insufficient for preventing local tumor recurrence. Supramarginal resection significantly improves local tumor control but was suggested not to be suitable for metastases in eloquent brain areas. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed a series of patients with cerebral metastases situated in eloquent areas for newly occurring neurologic deficits after supramarginal resection performed as awake surgery. A retrospective analysis was performed for all patients who underwent supramarginal resection for a cerebral metastasis performed as awake surgery between June 2011 and April 2012. All metastases were localized in eloquent brain areas. Pre- and postsurgical neurologic status was documented as well as data regarding the primary cancer and histopathologic data. Postoperative MRI within 72 h was scheduled routinely to verify complete resection. A total of 19 patients underwent awake surgery for a cerebral metastasis in eloquent brain areas. Surgery was well tolerated in all patients. Neurologic symptoms improved in five patients after surgery. In three patients, neurologic deficits existing before surgery worsened. The postoperative median National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score did not differ from the preoperative value. Awake surgery is a feasible tool for metastases in eloquent areas, minimizing postoperative neurologic deficits and morbidity. Therefore, eloquently situated metastases may also be eligible for supramarginal resection. Further studies are needed in order to analyze the benefit of this method in achieving better tumor control.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据