Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ependymoma is a common primary neoplasm of the spinal cord and filum terminale. Patients with spinal ependymoma usually experience gradual symptoms due to slow progression of the tumor; thus, early diagnosis can be challenging to make. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to report 5 years' experience in treating spinal intramedullary ependymomas and to illustrate the advantage of aggressive complete resection whenever possible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective medical notes of all patients with spinal ependymoma treated surgically over a 5-year period between January 2003 and January 2008 were recorded. Clinical presentation, spinal level, extent of resection, and complications were recorded. A prolonged follow-up was documented. RESULTS: There were 20 patients - 11 males, and nine females -included in this study. Their median age was 48 years (range 3-75 years). In 18 patients, total gross resection was achieved. Subtotal resection was only possible in one patient due to surgical difficulty. One patient underwent biopsy and referred for further surgery and subsequently had total resection. CONCLUSIONS: Radical total resection is achievable in spinal ependymomas, with minimal resultant morbidity.
Copyright
Association for Helping Neurosurgical Sick People. This is an open
access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Derivative-Non Commercial License, permitting
copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given
appropriate credit.
Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or
adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
)
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License, which
permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial
purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of
adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original
work is properly cited.
