Bhatkar Sanat, Goyal Manoj Kumar, Takkar Aastha, Modi Manish, Mukherjee Kanchan K, Singh Paramjeet, Radotra Bishan Das, Singh Ramandeep, Lal Vivek
Department of Neurology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Department of Neurosurgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2016 Dec;7(Suppl 1):S68-S71. doi: 10.4103/0976-3147.196448.
Ishikawa and Jefferson are the two most commonly used systems used for the classification of cavernous sinus syndrome (CSS). However, relative utilities of these two classification systems have not been evaluated in detail in developing countries. In this study, we compared relative utilities of these two classification schemes in the evaluation of CSS.
To compare the utility of Jefferson and Ishikawa classifications in the evaluation of CSS.
A total of 73 consecutive patients of CSS were prospectively classified using either Ishikawa or Jefferson classification and relative utility of these two classification schemes in determining etiology of CSS was compared.
While only 46.6% of patients could be classified using Jefferson classification, 95.5% of patients could be classified using Ishikawa scheme. CSS was classified as anterior, middle, and posterior in 17.8%, 21.9%, and 8.2% of patients, respectively, as per the Jefferson classification. As per the Ishikawa classification, 37% of patients each showed anterior and posterior CSS, 16.4% showed middle CSS, whereas 4.1% had whole CSS. Middle CSS was significantly associated with the presence of fungal infections ( = 0.045) as per Jefferson classifications, and anterior CSS was significantly associated with a vascular etiology ( = 0.005) as per Ishikawa classification. Overall, inflammatory causes were the most common cause for anterior CSS, while tumors accounted for maximum cases of posterior CSS.
Although more number of patients could be classified using Ishikawa classification, there was no advantage of Ishikawa classification over Jefferson with regard to determination of etiology of CSS.
石川分类法和杰斐逊分类法是海绵窦综合征(CSS)最常用的两种分类系统。然而,在发展中国家,这两种分类系统的相对效用尚未得到详细评估。在本研究中,我们比较了这两种分类方案在CSS评估中的相对效用。
比较杰斐逊分类法和石川分类法在CSS评估中的效用。
对73例连续的CSS患者前瞻性地采用石川分类法或杰斐逊分类法进行分类,并比较这两种分类方案在确定CSS病因方面的相对效用。
杰斐逊分类法仅能对46.6%的患者进行分类,而石川分类法能对95.5%的患者进行分类。根据杰斐逊分类法,CSS分别在17.8%、21.9%和8.2%的患者中被分类为前部、中部和后部。根据石川分类法,37%的患者表现为前部和后部CSS,16.4%表现为中部CSS,而4.1%为全海绵窦综合征。根据杰斐逊分类法,中部CSS与真菌感染显著相关(P = 0.045),而根据石川分类法,前部CSS与血管病因显著相关(P = 0.005)。总体而言,炎症原因是前部CSS最常见的原因,而肿瘤是后部CSS的最大病因。
尽管石川分类法能对更多患者进行分类,但在确定CSS病因方面,石川分类法相对于杰斐逊分类法并无优势。