Is surgery for pineal cysts safe and effective? Short review
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Review
Grant support
15-32791A
Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
Q25/LF1/2
Grantová Agentura, Univerzita Karlova
MO 1012NK
Ministry of National Defense, czech republic
PubMed
28702847
DOI
10.1007/s10143-017-0876-2
PII: 10.1007/s10143-017-0876-2
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Headache, Hydrocephalus, Neuroendoscopy, Neurosurgery, Pineal cyst, Stereotactic biopsy,
- MeSH
- Central Nervous System Cysts surgery MeSH
- Pineal Gland * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Brain Neoplasms surgery MeSH
- Postoperative Complications epidemiology MeSH
- Patient Selection MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
In this short review, the authors performed a database search and summarize current knowledge of the management of patients with pineal cysts (PCs) and investigate the role of surgical treatment. The scientific literature on the surgical treatment of PCs is sparse and encompasses only case series with little over 200 operated patients combined. All included papers reported favorable results after pineal cyst surgery with improvement of symptoms in most patients. Microsurgical resection of PCs, preferably using the supracerebellar-infratentorial approach, could be considered as a viable treatment option in symptomatic patients. Even patients with non-specific symptoms are reported to improve after surgery. However, evidence offered by this literature review is very limited and therefore our conclusions must be tempered by the restricted set of data. For ethical reasons, a randomized controlled trial is not an acceptable approach, and therefore patient registry could be a useful tool to identify a subset of symptomatic patients that might benefit from pineal cyst resection.
See more in PubMed
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011 Oct;8(4):422; author reply 422 PubMed
Coll Antropol. 2013 Mar;37(1):35-40 PubMed
J Neurosurg. 2015 Aug;123(2):350 PubMed
J Neurol Sci. 2016 Aug 15;367 :247-55 PubMed
J Neurosurg. 2015 Aug;123(2):352-6 PubMed
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016 Apr;158(4):663-9 PubMed
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Mar;176(3):737-43 PubMed
Childs Nerv Syst. 2004 Nov;20(11-12):842-51 PubMed
J Clin Neurosci. 2017 May;39:155-163 PubMed
Ann Diagn Pathol. 1997 Oct;1(1):11-8 PubMed
Neurochirurgie. 2015 Apr-Jun;61(2-3):201-7 PubMed
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013 Aug;115(8):1250-6 PubMed
Headache. 2008 Mar;48(3):448-52 PubMed
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017 Feb;159(2):349-361 PubMed
Neurosurgery. 1996 Aug;39(2):280-9; discussion 289-91 PubMed
J Neurol Sci. 2016 Apr 15;363:207-16 PubMed
J Neurosurg. 1994 Mar;80(3):454-60 PubMed
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Dec;156(12):2253-62 PubMed
Neurology. 1991 Jul;41(7):1034-40 PubMed
Neurosurgery. 2012 Mar;70(3):656-64; discussion 664-5 PubMed
World Neurosurg. 2017 Sep;105:199-205 PubMed
J Neurosurg. 2017 Aug;127(2):249-254 PubMed
What is the risk of venous cerebellar infarction in the supracerebellar infratentorial approach?
