Emrah Eray AKÇAY
(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, İzmir Bozyaka Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Nöroşirürji Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Hakan C. YILMAZ
(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, İzmir Bozyaka Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Nöroşirürji Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Hüseyin Berk BENEK
(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, İzmir Bozyaka Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Nöroşirürji Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Alper TABANLI
(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, İzmir Bozyaka Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Nöroşirürji Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Alaettin YURT
(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, İzmir Bozyaka Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Nöroşirürji Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2020Cilt: 37Sayı: 4ISSN: 1300-1817 / 2636-865XSayfa Aralığı: 215 - 220İngilizce

19 0
Craniopharyngiomas: Analysis of 68 Surgical Cases
Objective: Although craniopharyngiomas are benign pathologies, they have surgical challenges due to their locations, infiltrations, and potential for neuroendocrine problems. We evaluated the surgical outcomes, complications, the neuroendocrine problems in patients who underwent total or subtotal resection, and to reveal the ideal treatment regimen. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 68 patients who received pathologic results of craniopharyngioma between 1999 and 2019 in our neurosurgery clinic. The demographic characteristics, hormone levels, resection ratio (total/subtotal), residue and recurrence rate, and the complications after surgery were used in the analysis. Results: Twenty‑six (38.2%) patients underwent total tumor removal, and 42 (61.8%) had subtotal removal. Fifteen (22%) patients had recurrence. Of the total tumor removal group, only one patient was determined as having recurrence. We detected hypothalamic–pituitary system deficiency in 15 patients with total removal and nine patients with subtotal removal. Of the 37 patients who had lesions smaller than 4 cm, only one died and 30 were in good health after surgery. Of the 31 patients who had lesions larger than 4 cm, five died and 15 were in poor or moderate health. Conclusion: Tumor size is one of the most important factors affecting surgical results. Subtotal tumor removal is associated with tumor recurrence and total removal with serious hypothalamic deficiency symptoms.
DergiDiğerErişime Açık
  • 1. Mortini P, Losa M, Pozzobon G, Barzaghi R, Riva M, Acerno S, et al. Neurosurgical treatment of craniopharyngioma in adults and children: Early and long-term results in a large case series. J Neurosurg 2011;114:1350-9.
  • 2. Cheng J, Shao Q, Pan Z, You J. Analysis and long‑term follow‑up of the surgical treatment of children with craniopharyngioma. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:e763-66.
  • 3. Tamasauskas A, Bunevicius A, Matukevicius A, Radziunas A, Urbonas M, Deltuva V. Extended pterional approach for initial surgical management of craniopharyngiomas: A case series. Turk Neurosurg 2014;24:174-83.
  • 4. Lee EJ, Cho YH, Hong SH, Kim JH, Kim CJ. Is the complete resection of craniopharyngiomas in adults feasible considering both the oncologic and functional outcomes? J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2015;58:432-41.
  • 5. Okada T, Fujitsu K, Ichikawa T, Mukaihara S, Miyahara K, Tanino S. Surgical approaches and techniques for radical resection of craniopharyngioma based on histopathological analysis of the dissection plane. Jpn J Neurosurg 2014;23:142-9.
  • 6. Müller HL. Craniopharyngioma. Handb Clin Neurol 2014;124:235-53.
  • 7. Komotar RJ, Roguski M, Bruce JN. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas. J Neurooncol 2009;92:283-96.
  • 8. Rock AK, Dincer A, Carr MT, Opalak CF, Workman KG, Broaddus WC. Outcomes after craniotomy for resection of craniopharyngiomas in adults: Analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP). J Neurooncol 2019;144:117-25.
  • 9. Fahlbusch R, Hofmann BM. Surgical management of giant craniopharyngiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2008;150:1213-26.
  • 10. Morisako H, Goto T, Goto H, Bohoun CA, Tamrakar S, Ohata K. Aggressive surgery based on an anatomical subclassification of craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus 2016;41:E10.
  • 11. Dandurand C, Sepehry AA, Asadi Lari MH, Akagami R, Gooderham P. Adult craniopharyngioma: Case series, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 2018;83:631-41.
  • 12. Du C, Feng CY, Yuan XR, Liu Q, Peng ZF, Jiang XJ, et al. Microsurgical management of craniopharyngiomas via a unilateral subfrontal approach: A retrospective study of 177 continuous cases. World Neurosurg 2016;90:454-68.
  • 13. Erfurth EM, Holmer H, Fjalldal SB. Mortality and morbidity in adult craniopharyngioma. Pituitary 2013;16:46‑55.
  • 14. Wang G, Zhang X, Feng M, Guo F. Comparing survival outcomes of gross total resection and subtotal resection with radiotherapy for craniopharyngioma: A meta‑analysis. J Surg Res 2018;226:131-9.
  • 15. Rao YJ, Hassanzadeh C, Fischer‑Valuck B, Chicoine MR, Kim AH, Perkins SM, et al. Patterns of care and treatment outcomes of patients with craniopharyngioma in the national cancer database. J Neurooncol 2017;132:109-17.
  • 16. Lee MH, Kim SH, Seoul HJ, Nam DH, Lee JI, Park K, et al. Impact of maximal safe resection on the clinical outcome of adults with craniopharyngiomas. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:1005-8.
  • 17. Kim YH, Kim CY, Kim JW, Kim YH, Han JH, Park CK, et al. Longitudinal analysis of visual outcomes after surgical treatment of adult craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 2012;71:715-21.
  • 18. Zhao X, Yi X, Wang H, Zhao H. An analysis of related factors of surgical results for patients with craniopharyngiomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012;114:149-55.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.