Ratre Shailendra, Yadav Yad Ram, Parihar Vijay Singh, Kher Yatin
Department of Neurosurgery, NSCB Medical College Jabalpur, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India.
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2016 Jul;77(4):312-20. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1580595. Epub 2016 Apr 11.
Background Retraction of the overlying brain can be difficult without causing significant trauma when using traditional brain retractors with blades. These retractors may produce focal pressure and may result in brain contusion or infarction. Tubular retractors offer the advantage of low retracting pressure that is less likely to be traumatic. Low retraction pressure in the tubular retractor is due to the distribution of retraction force in all directions in a larger area. Material and Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 100 patients with deep-seated tumors operated on from January 2010 to December 2014. Tumor removal was accomplished with the help of a microscope and/or endoscope. Tubular brain retractors sizes 23, 18, and 15 mm were used. Folding of the tubular retractor after making a longitudinal cut allowed a small corticectomy. Larger retractor sizes were used in the earlier part of the study and in larger tumors. All the patients were evaluated postoperatively by computed tomography scan on the first postoperative day, and subsequent scans were done as and when needed. Any brain contusion or infarctions and the amount of tumor removal were recorded. Results A total of 74 patients had astrocytomas; 12, meningiomas; 4, colloid cyst of the third ventricle; 4, metastases; 4, primitive neuroectodermal tumor; 1, neurocytoma; and 1, ependymoma. Pure endoscopic excision without using a microscope was performed in 12 patients. Lesions were in the frontal (n = 34), parietal (n = 22), intraventricular (n = 16), basal ganglion or thalamic (n = 14), occipital (n = 10), and cerebellar (n = 4) areas. Total, near-total, and partial excision was achieved in 49, 29, and 22 patients, respectively. Use of a conventional retractor for excision of peripheral and superficial parts of a large tumor, small brain contusions, and technical failure were observed in 7, 4, and 1 patient, respectively. The low incidence of contusion may be partly due to the nonavailability of magnetic resonance imaging in the early postoperative period because of financial constraints. Conclusion Removal of deep-seated tumors was safe and effective using our simple tubular retractor. It also helped minimize bleeding during surgery. A tubular brain retractor and conventional retractor can be used to complement each other if required.
在使用带刀片的传统脑牵开器时,不造成严重创伤而牵开覆盖的脑组织可能很困难。这些牵开器可能产生局部压力,并可能导致脑挫伤或梗死。管状牵开器具有牵开压力低、创伤可能性较小的优点。管状牵开器的低牵开压力是由于牵开力在更大区域内全方位分布。
我们对2010年1月至2014年12月接受深部肿瘤手术的100例患者进行了回顾性研究。在显微镜和/或内窥镜的辅助下完成肿瘤切除。使用了尺寸为23、18和15毫米的管状脑牵开器。在纵向切割后折叠管状牵开器可进行小范围的皮质切除术。在研究早期和较大肿瘤中使用了更大尺寸的牵开器。所有患者在术后第一天通过计算机断层扫描进行评估,后续扫描根据需要进行。记录任何脑挫伤或梗死情况以及肿瘤切除量。
共有74例患者患有星形细胞瘤;12例患有脑膜瘤;4例患有第三脑室胶样囊肿;4例患有转移瘤;4例患有原始神经外胚层肿瘤;1例患有神经细胞瘤;1例患有室管膜瘤。12例患者未使用显微镜进行单纯内镜切除。病变位于额叶(n = 34)、顶叶(n = 22)、脑室内(n = 16)、基底节或丘脑(n = 14)、枕叶(n = 10)和小脑(n = 4)区域。分别有49例、29例和22例患者实现了全切、近全切和部分切除。分别有7例、4例和1例患者在切除大肿瘤的周边和浅表部分、小范围脑挫伤以及手术技术失败时使用了传统牵开器。挫伤发生率低可能部分归因于术后早期因经济限制无法进行磁共振成像检查。
使用我们简单的管状牵开器切除深部肿瘤是安全有效的。它还有助于减少手术中的出血。如果需要,管状脑牵开器和传统牵开器可相互补充。