Atormac
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 772  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
 Resource Links
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (30 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2389    
    Printed97    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded68    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
INVITED COMMENTS
Year : 2005  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 212

Invited Comment


Neurochirurgische Abteilung, Donauspital, Langobardenstrasse 122, 1220 Vienna, Austria

Correspondence Address:
Guenther Kleinpeter
Neurochirurgische Abteilung, Donauspital, Langobardenstrasse 122, 1220 Vienna
Austria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Kleinpeter G. Invited Comment. Neurol India 2005;53:212

How to cite this URL:
Kleinpeter G. Invited Comment. Neurol India [serial online] 2005 [cited 2019 Aug 23];53:212. Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2005/53/2/212/16414


For the past two decades, intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) was a well-established true real-time imaging instrument in brain surgery. Long before the advent of modern intraoperative CT and MR devices, this helpful tool could assess intraoperative orientation as well as facilitate effective tumor resection. Hence, its daily use depends on the specific experience of the user. Usually neurosurgeons are not familiar with ultrasonographic imaging to use it in their daily routine. Maybe because of this in the Scientific Echo statements heralding the benefits of the use of IOUS were low. Furthermore, the upcoming neuronavigation methods made the IOUS fall into desuetude.

Currently, modern neurosurgery is debating the benefits of neuronavigation in brain tumor surgery as the facilitation through resection via intraoperative CT and MR imaging. The most interesting feature for me is that modern ultrasonographic devices can offer both in one with far lower costs. There are promising data in the literature about the effectiveness of the new methods, showing that ultrasonographic resolution is equal to that of CT and MR imaging. For all the centers in the world with lesser resources, IOUS can indeed be an alternative to the expensive MR devices that have come into use.

From this angle, the present article deserves interest. Neurosurgeons have to familiarize themselves (again) with the use of intraoperative ultrasonographic devices and the imaging data they obtain before, during and after their resection work.

The intention of the authors was to characterize features of malignant brain tumors obtained from IOUS. The number of patients (40) seems to be appropriate for the purpose of comparing the sonographic appearance and configuration of cystic, solid, and necrotic parts of various malignant lesions. However, why is it important to 'predict' intraoperatively 'the pathological nature of the lesions?' What then is the value of the frozen section? And why do they not restrict their description merely to, for example, Grade IV malignant gliomas?

I am confused in the light of the fact that the study population comprised an inhomogeneous mix of patients with 'previously operated and irritated recurrent tumors, metastatic malignant lesions' and true 'primary malignant glial tumors!' From my operative experience, the excision of well-delineated metastatic lesions (mostly capsulated) differs significantly from that of intrinsic gliomas.

Therefore, for me the demonstrated features such as necrotic parts, perilesional edema, irregular contour and contrast enhancement could be more of intraoperative help in orientation and consequent tumor removal than in differentiating between various histological entities. All the further results of the paper are somehow related to this, which is my major objection, so I abstain from discussing them.






 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow