Sánchez GIV, Pérez CR, Ortiz MM, Aguilar CMC, Quevedo RN

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 48-54
PDF size: 593.60 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Craniopharyngiomas are tumors of a benign nature, with an invasive local behavior and an unfavorable prognosis due to neurological, visual and endocrine sequelae. It was proposed to determine the correlation between the clinical evaluations of the pituitary and hypothalamic status with the imaging classifications of Kassam and Puget. A study was carried out with a descriptive, correlational and retrospective design; with a convenience sample of a population (N = 1567) diagnosed with intracranial tumors by the Neurosurgery Service of the “Hermanos Ameijeiras” Hospital from January 2014 to December 2018. The variables age, sex, clinical manifestations, tumor location were included, hypothalamic status, pituitary status, imaging characteristics, hypothalamic involvement and relationship with the pituitary stem. The results were collected by a questionnaire; then it was compared by theoretical and statistical methods, systematizing the information using the InfoStat / L package for Windows. Forty-four cases were included, with a mean age of 32 ± 15,8 years, predominantly females (61,4%). The most common clinical manifestations were headache (88,6%) and visual disorders (77,2%); with lesions larger than 2 cm in diameter, suprasellar location (75,1%), hypothalamic status Grade II (45,5%) and Grade IV pituitary status (38,6%) all with enhanced contrast administration. The most significant association was demonstrated between pituitary and hypothalamic status (r=0,61; p=‹0,0001) and Puget classification (r=0,31; p=0,0382).

REFERENCES

1. Asano A, Kubo O, Tajika et al. Expression and role of cadherins in astrocytic tumors. Brain Thumor Patol. 2012; 1(4): p. 27-33.

2. Barloon T, Yuh W, Sato Y, Sickels W. Frontal lobe implantation of craniopharyngioma by repeated needle aspirations. AJNR. 2012; 9(2): p. 406-7.

3. Campbell PG, McGettigan B, Luginbuhl A et al. Endocrinological and ophtalmological consequences of an initial endonasal endoscopic approach for resection of craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2012; 28(7): p. 90-98.

4. Cappabianca P, Esposit F, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis O, de Divitiis E. Técnicas actuales en neurocirugía endoscópica. Abordajes transnasales a la base de cráneo. Edi Guadalupe. 2007; 7(4): p. 269-288.

5. Who World Organization. Surgical treatment of craniopharyngiomas: an evaluation of the transsphenoidal and pterional approaches. Neurosurg. 2013; 36(4): p. 715-724.

6. Malik JM, Cosgrove GR, Vanden Berg SR. Remote recurrence of craniopharyngioma in the epidural space. Case report. J Neurosurg. 2012; 77(4): p. 804- 807.

7. Nomura H, Kurimoto M, Nagai S, Hayashi NH, TsukamotoY. Multiple intracranial seeding of craniopharyngioma after repeated surgery. Case report. Neurol Med Chir. 2012; 42(6): p. 268-271

8. Elliott RE, Sands SA, Strom RG, Wisoff JH. Craniopharyngioma. Clinical Status Scale: estandarizad metric of preoperative function and posttreatment outcome. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(4): p. 121-132.

9. López Arbolay O, Lobaina Ortiz M, Ortiz Machín M. Craneofaringiomas. Riesgos y desafíos del abordaje endonasal endoscópico extendido a la base del cráneo. Revista Chilena de Neurocirugía. 2014; 40: p. 12-17. Disponible en: http://www.neurocirugia. cl/new/images/revistas/40v1/3-Lopez.pdf.

10. Yang I, Sughrue ME, Rutkowski MJ, Kaur R. Craniopharyngioma: a comparison of tumor control with various treatment strategies. Neurosurg Focus. 2012; 28(6): p. 312-334.

11. Baskin DS, Wilson CB. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas. A review of 74 cases. J Neurosurg. 2012; 6(5): p. 22-27.

12. Puget S, Garnett M, Wray A. Pediatric craniopharyngiomas: classification and treatment according to the degree of hypothalamic involvement. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. 2007; 106 (1): p. 3-12.

13. Kassam AB, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH, Mintz AH, Prevedello DM. Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for there section of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg. 2008; 108(4): p. 715-728.

14. Bunin G, Surawicz T, Witman P et al. The descriptive epidemiology of craniopharyngioma. Neurosurg Focus. 2014; 3(3): p. 46-57.

15. Erfurth EM, Holmer H, Fjalldal SB. Mortality and morbility in adult with craniopharyngioma. Pituitary. 2012; 7(4): p. 90-92.

16. Ortiz Machín M, López Arbolay O. Tratamiento quirúrgico endonasal endoscópico en los pacientes con craneofaringiomas. Tesis de Terminación de la Especialidad. La Habana: Universidad de Ciencias Médicas; 2013.

17. Tena-Suck ML, Reyes IM, Vega R et al. Craneofaringioma, estudio clínico-patológico. Quince años del Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía “Manuel Velasco Suárez”. Gaceta Médica de México. 2009 [cited 2019 Enero 23]; 145(5): p. 361-368. Disponible en: http://www.anmm. org.mx/GMM/2009/n5/1_vol_145_n5.pdf

18. Hoffmann A, Boekhoff S, Gebhardt U et al. History before diagnosis in childhood craniopharyngioma: associations with initial presentation and long-term prognosis. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2015; 17(3): p. 853-862.

19. Elowe-Gruau E, Beltrand J, Brauner R et al. Childhood craniopharyngioma: hypothalamussparing surgery decreases the risk of obesity. Endocrine Care. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 98(6): p. 2376–82.

20. Jobnsen D. Imaging of the sellar and juxtasellar. RadioGraph. 2012; 11(4): p. 727-58.

21. Robles Acosta VH, Horta Martínez A, Franco Castellano R. Característica por resonancia magnética del craneofaringioma. Experiencia en el Hospital General del centro “La Raza”. Anales Radiología de México. 2008; 11(4): p. 239–245.

22. Müller HL Merchant TE Puget S Martínez Barbera JP. New outlook on the diagnosis, treatment and follow up of childhood-onset craniopharyngioma. [Online]; 2016 [cited 2019 Enero 23]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2016.217.