Three-Level Anterior Cervical Corpectomy for Resection of Disseminated Posterior Fossa Ependymoma: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Low-grade posterior fossa ependymomas are neoplasms that rarely disseminate at the initial presentation or recurrence. Methods: We describe a case of low-grade posterior fossa ependymoma initially treated with resection and radiation 20 years prior. At the time of presentation, multiple intracranial and spinal lesions were identified, most notably a non-enhancing ventral intradural lesion at C6-7. Results: The 56-year-old presented with progressive left upper and lower extremity weakness. He underwent resection of the ventral intradural lesion at C6-7. The surgery involved a C5-7 corpectomy for resection and a C2-T3 posterior spinal fusion for stabilization. His weakness resolved postoperatively. We then present a systematic review of the literature on the dissemination of low-grade posterior fossa ependymoma. Fifteen studies were identified, involving 23 patients. Conclusion: Late dissemination of low-grade posterior fossa ependymoma could arise decades after the initial surgery despite gross-total resection and adjuvant radiotherapy. Malignant transformation and multicentric tumor development may also occur after treatment of the primary ependymoma. A varied extent of resection and adjuvant therapies have been involved in treating disseminated conventional posterior fossa ependymoma, with surgical decisions largely dependent on a multifactorial basis.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Three-Level Anterior Cervical Corpectomy for Resection of Disseminated Posterior Fossa Ependymoma: Case Report and Review of the Literature
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2025
- Éditeur
- ClinMed International Library
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.