Needle displacement during stereotactic biopsy of a meningioma: a case report

  • S. Bastianello
  • A. Paolillo
  • A. Santoro
  • P. Ciappetta
  • R. Delfini
  • L. M. Fantozzi
  • P. Baroni
  • G. P. Cantore
  • L. Bozzao
Conference paper

Abstract

Histological diagnosis of brain tumours based on neuroradiological imaging is not always easy. A biopsy procedure may be necessary in selected cases to achieve a correct diagnosis and to apply an adequate therapy. We observed a young man with a rounded mass located in the right temporal lobe. Diagnosis was not possible by CT, MRI and angiography. We therefore decided to perform a brain biopsy using a sterotactic procedure. Histological examination of the fresh biopsy cylinder yielded a diagnosis of papilloma of the choroidal plexus. CT performed after the sterotactic procedure showed the biopsy track outside the tumour, not reaching the target but ending medial to the lateral ventricle, thus documenting procedure failure. This could have been due to displacement of the needle, possibly by a solid mass, during the stereotactic procedure. A new target was calculated and the biopsy repeated. The histological diagnosis was meningioma. The patient was submitted to open brain surgery and a solid meningioma was revealed.

key words

Stereotactic brain biopsy, failure 

References

  1. 1.
    Voges J, Schroder R, Treuer H, et al (1993) CT-guided and computer-assisted stereotactic biopsy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 125:142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feiden W, Steude U, Bise K, Gundish O (1991) Accuracy of stereotactic brain tumor biopsy: comparison of the histologic findings in biopsy cylinders and resected tumor tissue. Neurosurg Rev 14:51–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apuzzo LJM, Chandrasoma PT, Cohen D, et al (1987) Computed imaging stereotaxy: experience and perspective related to 500 procedures applied to brain masses. Neurosurgery 20:930–937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chandrasoma PT, Smith MM, Apuzzo MLJ (1989) Stereotactic biopsy in the diagnosis of brain masses: comparison of results of biopsy and resected surgical specimens. Neurosurgery 24:160–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lunsford LD, Leksell D (1988) The Leksell system. In: Lunsford LD (ed) Modern stereotactic neurosurgery. Nijhoff, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burger PC, Vogel FS (1982) Surgical pathology of the nervous system and its coverings, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scerrati M, Rossi GF (1984) The reliability of stereotactic biopsy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) [Suppl] 33:201–205.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gullotta F (1981) Morphological and biological basis for the classification of brain tumors. With a comment on the WHO-Classification 1979. In: Krayenbuhl H (ed) Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, Vol 8. Springer, Vienna New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleihues P, Volk B, Anagnostopoulos J, Kiessling M (1984) Morphologic evaluation of stereotactic brain tumor biopsies. Acta Neurochir (Wien) [Suppl] 33:171–184.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colombo F, Casentini L, Zanusso M, Danirli D, Benedetti A (1988) Validity of stereotactic biopsy as a diagnostic tool. Acta Neurochir (Wien) [Suppl] 42:152–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edner G (1981) Stereotactic biopsy of intracranial space occupying lesions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 57:213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Bastianello
    • 1
  • A. Paolillo
    • 1
  • A. Santoro
    • 1
  • P. Ciappetta
    • 1
  • R. Delfini
    • 1
  • L. M. Fantozzi
    • 1
  • P. Baroni
    • 1
  • G. P. Cantore
    • 1
  • L. Bozzao
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Neuroradiology, Department of NeurosciencesUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations