Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Rudolf Fahlbusch x
  • By Author: Samii, Amir x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Rudolf Fahlbusch and Amir Samii

Full access

Venelin Gerganov, Hussam Metwali, Amir Samii, Rudolf Fahlbusch and Madjid Samii

Object

An extensive craniopharyngioma is a tumor that extends into multiple compartments (subarachnoid spaces) and attains a size larger than 4 cm. A wide spectrum of approaches and strategies has been used for resection of such craniopharyngiomas. In this report the authors focused on the feasibility and efficacy of microsurgical resection of extensive craniopharyngiomas using a frontolateral approach.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 16 patients with extensive craniopharyngiomas who underwent operations using a frontolateral approach at one institution. The preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiological data, as well as the operative videos, were reviewed. The main focus of the review was the extent of radical tumor removal, early postoperative outcome, and approach-related complications.

Results

Gross-total resection of craniopharyngioma was achieved in 14 (87.5%) of 16 cases. Early after surgery (within 3 months), 1 patient showed improvement in hormonal status, while in the remaining 15 patients it worsened. No major neurological morbidity was observed. Two patients experienced temporary psychotic disorders. Visual function improved in 6 patients and remained unchanged in 9. One patient experienced a new bitemporal hemianopsia. Three patients with features of short-term memory disturbances at presentation did show improvement after surgery. There were no deaths or significant approach-related morbidity in this patient series. Only 1 patient required revision surgery for a CSF leak.

Conclusions

The safe and simple frontolateral approach provides adequate access even to extensive craniopharyngiomas and enables their complete removal with a reasonable morbidity and approach-related complication rate.

Restricted access

Venelin Miloslavov Gerganov, Amir Samii, Arasch Akbarian, Lennart Stieglitz, Madjid Samii and Rudolf Fahlbusch

Object

Ultrasound may be a reliable but simpler alternative to intraoperative MR imaging (iMR imaging) for tumor resection control. However, its reliability in the detection of tumor remnants has not been definitely proven. The aim of the study was to compare high-field iMR imaging (1.5 T) and high-resolution 2D ultrasound in terms of tumor resection control.

Methods

A prospective comparative study of 26 consecutive patients was performed. The following parameters were compared: the existence of tumor remnants after presumed radical removal and the quality of the images. Tumor remnants were categorized as: detectable with both imaging modalities or visible only with 1 modality.

Results

Tumor remnants were detected in 21 cases (80.8%) with iMR imaging. All large remnants were demonstrated with both modalities, and their image quality was good. Two-dimensional ultrasound was not as effective in detecting remnants < 1 cm. Two remnants detected with iMR imaging were missed by ultrasound. In 2 cases suspicious signals visible only on ultrasound images were misinterpreted as remnants but turned out to be a blood clot and peritumoral parenchyma. The average time for acquisition of an ultrasound image was 2 minutes, whereas that for an iMR image was ~ 10 minutes. Neither modality resulted in any procedure-related complications or morbidity.

Conclusions

Intraoperative MR imaging is more precise in detecting small tumor remnants than 2D ultrasound. Nevertheless, the latter may be used as a less expensive and less time-consuming alternative that provides almost real-time feedback information. Its accuracy is highest in case of more confined, deeply located remnants. In cases of more superficially located remnants, its role is more limited.

Free access

Mario Giordano, Amir Samii, Anna C. Lawson McLean, Helmut Bertalanffy, Rudolf Fahlbusch, Madjid Samii and Concezio Di Rocco

OBJECTIVE

The use of high-field intraoperative MRI has been largely studied for the treatment of intracranial tumors in adult patients. In this study, the authors investigated the safety, advantages, and limitations of high-field iMRI for cranial neurosurgical procedures in pediatric patients, with particular attention to craniopharyngiomas and gliomas.

METHODS

The authors performed 82 surgical procedures in patients under 16 years of age (range 0.8–15 years) over an 8-year period (2007–2014) using iMRI. The population was divided into 3 groups based on the condition treated: sellar region tumors (Group 1), gliomas (Group 2), and other pathological entities (Group 3). The patients' pre- and postoperative neurological status, the presence of residual tumor, the number of intraoperative scans, and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

In Group 1, gross-total resection (GTR) was performed in 22 (88%) of the procedures and subtotal resection (STR) in 3 (12%). In Group 2, GTR, STR, and partial resection (PR) were performed, respectively, in 15 (56%), 7 (26%), and 5 (18%) of the procedures. In Group 3, GTR was performed in 28 (93%) and STR in 2 (7%) of the procedures. In cases of craniopharyngioma (Group 1) and glioma (Group 2) in which a complete removal was planned, iMRI allowed localization of residual lesions and attainment of the surgical goal through further resection, respectively, in 18% and 27% of the procedures. Moreover, in gliomas the resection could be extended from partial to subtotal in 50% of the cases. In 17% of the patients in Group 3, iMRI enabled the identification and further removal of tumor remnants. There was no intra- or postoperative complication related to the use of iMRI despite special technical difficulties in smaller children.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the use of iMRI in children proved to be safe. It was most effective in increasing the extent of tumor resection, especially in patients with low-grade gliomas and craniopharyngiomas. The most prominent disadvantage of high-field iMRI was the limitation with respect to operative positioning due to the configuration of the surgical table.