Surgical treatment of patients with giant petroclival meningiomas
https://doi.org/10.24412/1683-3295-2025-27-1-10-21
Abstract
Background. Surgical treatment of petroclival meningiomas (PCM), especially of giant PCM, remains one of the most difficult problems in neurosurgery and is associated with high risks of postoperative morbidity and mortality.
Aim. to determinate frequency and reversibility of post-operative neurological deficit after giant PCMs resection as well as identify risk factors of this surgery and the resection quality of these tumors.
Materials and methods. The results of surgical treatment of 18 patients underwent 22 operations to resect giant PCMs were retrospectively studied. The neurological status and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) of patients were assessed before surgery, immediately after and 6 months later, as well as neuroimaging characteristics of tumors before and after surgery were studied. We analyzed the influence of various factors on neurological outcomes and the resection quality.
Results. The average PCM volume before surgery was 46.3 ± 25.4 cm3, the average resection volume was 81 ± 16.8 %. The incidence of neurological deficit in the early postoperative period was 63.6 %, mortality was 0 %. The most common complication was injury of cranial nerves (63.6 %). The scores according to Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) before surgery (median 80 %) improved 6 months after surgery (median 90 %). The PCMIS after 6 months was on average equal to the preoperative level (8.1 ± 6.3 and 7.5 ± 5.3, respectively). Low Karnofsky Performance Scale status before surgery (<70 %) did not affect the occurrence of postoperative deficit (p = 0.465)
Conclusion. Surgery of giant PCMs is a difficult problem. Subcompensated patients with these tumors are often rejected in surgical treatment, however, our results demonstrate that this surgery leads in most cases to an improvement in the patients’ neurological condition in 6 months after surgery, while using the surgical treatment principles described by us.
About the Authors
I. M. Alekseev
I.I. Pirogov National Medical Surgical Center
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ivan M. Alekseev.
70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya St., 105203 Moscow
N. N. Turabekov
Tashkent Medical Academy
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
2 Farobiy St., 100109 Tashkent
A. V. Dimertsev
I.I. Pirogov National Medical Surgical Center
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya St., 105203 Moscow
A. A. Zuev
I.I. Pirogov National Medical Surgical Center
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya St., 105203 Moscow
References
1. Cushing H., Eisenhardt L. Meningiomas: their classification, regional behavior, life history, and surgical end results. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1938.
2. Zhao Z., Yuan X., Yuan J. et al. Treatment strategy for petroclival meningiomas based on a proposed classification in a study of 168 cases. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):4655. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61497-y
3. Almefty R., Dunn I., Pravdenkova S. et al. True petroclival meningiomas: results of surgical management. J Neurosurg 2014;120(1):40–51. DOI: 10.3171/2013.8.JNS13535
4. Ichimura S., Kawase T., Onozuka S. et al. Four subtypes of petroclival meningiomas: differences in symptoms and operative findings using the anterior transpetrosal approach. Acta Neurochirurgica 2008;150(7):637–45. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-008-1586-x
5. Shimanskiy V.N., Karnaukhov V.V., Galkin M.V. et al. Treatment of petroclival meningiomas: current state of the problem. Zhurnal Voprosy Neirokhirurgii im. N.N. Burdenko = Burdenko’s Journal of Neurosurgery 2019;83(6):78–89. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/neiro20198306178
6. Morisako H., Goto T., Ohata K. Petroclival meningiomas resected via a combined transpetrosal approach: surgical outcomes in 60 cases and a new scoring system for clinical evaluation. J Neurosurg 2015;122(2):373–80. DOI: 10.3171/2014.8.JNS132406
7. Sekhar L., Jannetta P., Burkhart L. et al. Meningiomas involving the clivus: a six-year experience with 41 patients. Neurosurgery 1990;27(5):764–81; discussion 781. DOI: 10.1227/00006123-199011000-00015
8. Pirayesh A., Petrakakis I., Raab P. et al. Petroclival meningiomas: magnetic resonance imaging factors predict tumor resectability and clinical outcome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2016;147:90–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.06.002.
9. Spetzler R., Sanai N. The quiet revolution: retractorless surgery for complex vascular and skull base lesions: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2012;116(2):291–300. DOI: 10.3171/2011.8.JNS101896
10. Li D., Tang J., Ren C. et al. Surgical management of medium and large petroclival meningiomas: a single institution’s experience of 199 cases with long-term follow-up. Acta Neurochirurgica 2016; 158(3):409–25; discussion 425. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-015-2671-6
11. Park H., Kim W., Jung H. et al. Radiosurgery vs. microsurgery for newly diagnosed, small petroclival meningiomas with trigeminal neuralgia. Neurosurg Rev 2020;43(6):1631–40. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01346-8
12. Bernard F., Troude L., Isnard S. et al. Long term surgical results of 154 petroclival meningiomas: a retrospective multicenter study. Neurochirurgie 2019;65(2–3):55–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2019.02.001
13. Shimanskiy V.N. Meningiomas of the base of the posterior cranial fossa. Clinic, diagnosis and surgical treatment. Dis. … doct. med. sci. Moscow, 2005. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Alekseev I.M., Turabekov N.N., Dimertsev A.V., Zuev A.A. Surgical treatment of patients with giant petroclival meningiomas. Russian journal of neurosurgery. 2025;27(1):10-21. https://doi.org/10.24412/1683-3295-2025-27-1-10-21
Views:
234
Email this article 