TY - JOUR
T1 - Craniotomy vs. craniectomy for posterior fossa tumors
T2 - A prospective study to evaluate complications after surgery
AU - Legnani, Federico G.
AU - Saladino, Andrea
AU - Casali, Cecilia
AU - Vetrano, Ignazio G.
AU - Varisco, Marco
AU - Mattei, Luca
AU - Prada, Francesco
AU - Perin, Alessandro
AU - Mangraviti, Antonella
AU - Solero, Carlo L.
AU - DiMeco, Francesco
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Background Posterior fossa surgery traditionally implies permanent bone removal. Although suboccipital craniectomy offers an excellent exposure, it could lead to complications. Thus, some authors proposed craniotomy as a valuable alternative to craniectomy. In the present study we compare postoperative complications after craniotomy or craniectomy for posterior fossa surgery. Methods We prospectively collected data for a consecutive series of patients who underwent either posterior fossa craniotomy or craniectomy for tumor resection. We divided patients into two groups based on the surgical procedure performed and safety, complication rates and length of hospitalization were analyzed. Craniotomies were performed with Control-Depth-Attachment® drill and chisel, while we did craniectomies with perforator and rongeurs. Results One-hundred-fifty-two patients were included in the study (craniotomy n =100, craniectomy n =52). We detected no dural damage after bone removal in both groups. The total complication rate related to the technique itself was 7 % for the craniotomy group and 32.6 % for the craniectomy group (
AB - Background Posterior fossa surgery traditionally implies permanent bone removal. Although suboccipital craniectomy offers an excellent exposure, it could lead to complications. Thus, some authors proposed craniotomy as a valuable alternative to craniectomy. In the present study we compare postoperative complications after craniotomy or craniectomy for posterior fossa surgery. Methods We prospectively collected data for a consecutive series of patients who underwent either posterior fossa craniotomy or craniectomy for tumor resection. We divided patients into two groups based on the surgical procedure performed and safety, complication rates and length of hospitalization were analyzed. Craniotomies were performed with Control-Depth-Attachment® drill and chisel, while we did craniectomies with perforator and rongeurs. Results One-hundred-fifty-two patients were included in the study (craniotomy n =100, craniectomy n =52). We detected no dural damage after bone removal in both groups. The total complication rate related to the technique itself was 7 % for the craniotomy group and 32.6 % for the craniectomy group (
KW - Brain tumor
KW - Craniectomy
KW - Craniotomy
KW - CSF leak
KW - Posterior fossa
KW - Pseudomeningocele
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892184565&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892184565&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00701-013-1882-y
DO - 10.1007/s00701-013-1882-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 24078114
AN - SCOPUS:84892184565
VL - 155
SP - 2281
EP - 2286
JO - Acta Neurochirurgica
JF - Acta Neurochirurgica
SN - 0001-6268
IS - 12
ER -