Endoscopic Midline and Paramedian Supracerebellar Infratentorial Approaches to Pineal Region Tumors: A Clinical Study and Approach Comparison
World Neurosurgery, ISSN: 1878-8750, Vol: 168, Page: 63-73
2022
- 10Citations
- 11Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations10
- Citation Indexes10
- 10
- CrossRef1
- Captures11
- Readers11
- 11
Article Description
This study was to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic midline and paramedian supracerebellar infratentorial approaches (EM-SCITA and EPM-SCITA) for pineal region tumors. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 58 patients who underwent EM-SCITA and EPM-SCITA for pineal region tumors. Among them, 23 patients were treated with EM-SCITA, and 35 with EPM-SCITA. The patients were followed up for 6–84 months with magnetic resonance imaging and Karnofsky Performance Status scores. The average age of the patients was 37.98 years, and there were 16 women (27.6%). The average maximum diameter of the tumors was 2.92 cm. Gross total resection was achieved in 46 patients (79.31%). There were 45 patients (77.6%) whose Karnofsky Performance Status score was >70 at the final follow-up. There was no significant difference among the above items between EM-SCITA and EPM-SCITA. However, EM-SCITA required a longer craniotomy and closure time, with a larger bone and dural flap, with more bridging veins sacrificed. EPM-SCITA simplified the opening of the quadrigeminal cistern, and it was beneficial to expose the contralateral wall of the third ventricle. The longer and angled path limited the exposure of the anterior third ventricle and the ipsilateral wall of the third ventricle. Both approaches had remarkable clinical effects. The anatomy of EM-SCITA was easy to understand and has a larger operating space; it is suitable for neurosurgical beginners. In contrast, EPM-SCITA has limited operation space, an intricate anatomy, and is suitable for experienced operators. The occurrence of postoperative hydrocephalus should be alerted by EPM-SCITA.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878875022013511; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.09.074; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85139736610&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36152938; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1878875022013511; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.09.074
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know