Patient-evaluated Outcome after Surgery for Basal Meningiomas
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To study the outcomes of patients with basal meningiomas treated by one primary surgeon with a philosophy of aggressive surgical management to establish an index of satisfaction and patient-evaluated outcome. METHODS: We collected prospective data for patients with basal meningiomas who were operated on by one primary surgeon (LNS) during a 7-year period from 1993 to 2000. The outcomes in 269 patients were ascertained through follow-up visits, mailed follow-up questionnaires, and telephone interviews by two other surgeons (RA and MN). The mean patient age was 50 +/- 13.6 years. The mean estimated tumor diameter was 3.07 +/- 1.24 cm. There were 62 males and 207 females. Mean follow-up was 49 +/- 26 months. Twenty-seven percent of patients were Levine-Sekhar (LS) Grade 0, 43% were LS Grade I, 24% were LS Grade II, and 6% were LS Grade III. Gross total resection was achieved in 66% of patients. Extent of resection correlated (P < 0.05) with LS grade. Thirty-seven patients received adjuvant treatments, and six patients required reoperations. Perioperative mortality was 1.1%. Eighty percent of patients were discharged home, 17% were discharged to rehabilitation facilities, and 1.5% were discharged to nursing homes. Postoperative complications were observed in 30% of patients. RESULTS: During the follow-up study, of a total of 269 patients, 30 patients could not be contacted, and 11 patients had died of unrelated causes. The mean follow-up Karnofsky Performance Scale score of the patients was 83 +/- 10. Ninety-seven percent of patients were very satisfied/satisfied with their treatments (P < 0.001). Forty-three percent of patients were employed, and 83% of patients were employable. Their expectations of treatment were met in 90% of patients (P < 0.001), 95% thought surgery had been a good treatment choice (P < 0.001), and 95% would recommend the same treatment for a family member (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that patient satisfaction can remain high and satisfactory outcome can be achieved with surgical management in patients with these complex lesions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».