Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Zuccaro

Publications and source records attributed to G Zuccaro.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

M1a/M1b esophageal carcinoma: clinical relevance.

OBJECTIVE: The 1997 staging system for esophageal carcinoma subdivides distant metastatic disease (M1) into M1a (nonregional lymph node metastases) and M1b (other metastases). This study evaluates the relevance of this classification. METHODS: One hundred forty patients were identified with M1 disease, 36 (26%) M1a and 104 (74%) M1b. The histologic type was adenocarcinoma in 118 (84%), squamous cell in 18 (13%), and adenosquamous in 4 (3%), with a similar distribution for M1a and M1b (P =.3). Forty-five underwent surgery, 28 (78%) with M1a disease and 17 (16%) with M1b disease (P <.001). Chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy was given to 33 (73%) surgical patients and 63 (66%) nonsurgical patients (P =.4), 28 (78%) with M1a disease and 68 (66%) with M1b disease (P =.17). RESULTS: Median and 5-year survivals were 11 months and 6% in patients with M1a disease and 5 months and 2% in those with M1b disease (P =.001). Surgery provided no advantage in M1b (P =.6) or M1a disease (P =.2). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that patients with M1b disease had 1.8 times the mortality risk of those with M1a disease (CI 1.2-2.7, P =.004), and patients without chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy had 2.2 times the mortality risk of those with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy (CI 1.5-3.2, P <.001). Despite the prevalence of surgery in patients with M1a disease, the analysis suggests that M1a and use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, rather than surgery, account for the small, clinically unimportant differences in survival. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that (1) although there are statistically significant survival differences between M1a and M1b disease, these differences are not clinically important; (2) chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy is associated with a modest survival benefit; and (3) surgery offers no survival advantage.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1999

Esophageal diverticula: patient assessment.

Esophageal diverticula are best classified by their anatomic location: pharyngoesophageal (Zenker's diverticula), midthoracic, and epiphrenic. Most diverticula result from esophageal motility disorders. Although some patients are asymptomatic and diverticula are incidental findings, most patients are symptomatic. Dysphagia, regurgitation, and pain are common complaints, however, symptoms are often nonspecific and may be the result of an associated esophageal motility disorder. Contrast radiography is the prime diagnostic tool; evaluation of the diverticulum, associated esophageal abnormalities, and complications are assessed by a barium esophogram. Esophagoscopy adds little to the evaluation of the diverticulum but may be indicated in the assessment of other esophageal abnormalities. Motility studies, which may be difficult or hazardous to perform, are of little use in the diagnosis and treatment of Zenker's diverticula. Manometric evaluation of midthoracic or epiphrenic diverticula usually show an associated motility disorder and may influence treatment decisions.

Diverticulum, Esophageal↗
PubMed1999

Endoscopic ultrasound cannot determine suitability for esophagectomy after aggressive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) provides important information in the initial staging of patients with esophageal cancer. With recent modifications in chemoradiotherapy protocols, a significant number of patients have no residual tumor at esophagectomy. The high surgical morbidity and mortality might be avoided if complete response to chemoradiotherapy could be predicted. Previously published clinical trials, with relatively small patient numbers, have suggested that EUS may accurately stage esophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of EUS in staging esophageal cancer after effective chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: EUS staging was performed before and after concurrent cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and hyperfractionated radiotherapy in 59 patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer. All patients underwent subsequent esophagectomy and pathological staging. The accuracy of preoperative, postchemoradiotherapy EUS was evaluated in a retrospective fashion by comparison to pathological staging. RESULTS: After chemoradiotherapy, 18 patients (31%) had no residual disease at pathological staging (T0N0). However, EUS correctly predicted complete response to chemoradiotherapy (T0N0) in only three patients (17%). The accuracy of postchemoradiotherapy EUS for pathological T stage was only 37%, and its sensitivity for N1 disease was only 38%. EUS was unable to distinguish postradiation fibrosis and inflammation from residual tumor. CONCLUSION: When aggressive preoperative chemoradiotherapy is provided to patients with esophageal cancer, the predictive value of postchemoradiotherapy EUS is inadequate for use in clinical decision making.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1998

Esophageal carcinoma: depth of tumor invasion is predictive of regional lymph node status.

BACKGROUND: The depth of tumor invasion (T) and regional lymph node status (N) are two factors that define the stage of an esophageal carcinoma. However, the arrangement of staging groups assumes that these factors are independent variables. A retrospective review of 359 consecutive patients undergoing esophageal resection was conducted to define the relationship between T and N and to determine whether T is a significant predictor of regional lymph node metastasis (N1). METHODS: Primary treatment was operation without preoperative therapy. There were 295 (82%) adenocarcinomas, 55 (15%) squamous cell carcinomas, and 9 (3%) adenosquamous carcinomas. T status was Tis in 29 (8%) patients, T1 in 65 (18%), T2 in 37 (10%), T3 in 219 (61%), and T4 in 9 (3%). N status was N0 in 161 (45%) patients and N1 in 198 (55%). M status was M0 in 327 (91%) patients and M1 in 32 (9%). Stage was 0 in 29 (8%) patients, I in 58 (16%), IIA in 70 (20%), IIB in 22 (6%), III in 148 (41%), and IV in 32 (9%). RESULTS: The likelihood of N1 disease occurring with increasing T was tested using the trend test. The percentage of patients with N1 disease is 0% for Tis, 11% for T1, 43% for T2, 77% for T3, and 67% for T4 (p < 0.001). This relationship existed for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Multivariable analysis identified increasing T, adenocarcinoma, and lack of well-differentiated histologic features as significant predictors of N1 disease. Compared with a T1 patient, a T2 patient is 6 times more likely to have N1 disease, a T3 patient 23 times, and a T4 patient 35 times. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that for patients with esophageal carcinoma, T is an important predictor of N and this association should be included with other established factors used in clinical staging and treatment decisions.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1998

Viridans streptococcal bacteremia after esophageal stricture dilation.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of bacteremia with organisms that may cause infective endocarditis after esophageal stricture dilation is unknown. There is disagreement among physicians regarding the need for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing dilation. Our aim was to determine the frequency and duration of bacteremia associated with esophageal stricture dilation. METHODS: Blood cultures were obtained before and after stricture dilation in patients without valvular heart disease and in a control group of patients undergoing upper endoscopy without dilation. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients undergoing dilation and 50 control patients were studied; 22 of 103 patients (21%) undergoing dilation had at least one post-procedure blood culture positive for viridans streptococcus, compared with 1 of 50 (2%) of control patients (p = 0. 001). Blood cultures obtained 1 minute after stricture dilation were positive for viridans streptococcus in 19 of 81 (23%), in 16 of 96 (17%) 5 minutes post-dilation, and in 3 of 63 (5%) 20 to 30 minutes post-dilation. Of the 19 patients with viridans streptococcus bacteremia 1 minute after dilation, cultures were still positive in 14 of 19 (74%) at 5 minutes and in 2 of 19 (10%) 20 to 30 minutes post-dilation. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis before esophageal stricture dilation for patients with valvular heart disease at risk for the development of infective endocarditis.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1998

Pretreatment with methylprednisolone to prevent ERCP-induced pancreatitis: a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatitis remains the major complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Uncontrolled data suggest a lower incidence of pancreatitis in patients with a history of iodine sensitivity when given pretreatment with corticosteroids. We conducted a clinical trial to assess the efficacy of a commonly prescribed corticosteroid, methylprednisolone, to prevent ERCP-induced pancreatitis. METHODS: Patients were entered into a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intravenous methylprednisolone (125 mg) versus a saline placebo immediately before the ERCP. All patients were evaluated for early and late complications. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were randomized. Thirty-one randomized patients were excluded for technical reasons at the time of ERCP. Overall, the incidence of pancreatitis was 16 of 129 (12.4%, 95% CI: 6.7-18.1%) in the methylprednisolone group and 11 of 126 (8.7%, 95% CI: 4.4-15.1%) in the placebo group, which was not significantly different (p = 0.34). Although there was a higher rate of sphincterotomy performed in the methylprednisolone group compared to the control group (31.8% vs 16.8%, p = 0.005), the incidence of pancreatitis was not different when patients undergoing sphincterotomy were analyzed separately (13.6% in the methylprednisolone group and 9.6% in the placebo group,p = 0.50). There was no significant difference between the two groups for those with ERCP-induced pancreatitis in hospital length of stay (p = 0.22), days of parenteral analgesia (p = 0.09), or days of parenteral nutrition (p = 0.15). CONCLUSION: Intravenous methylprednisolone is not beneficial in preventing ERCP-induced pancreatitis.

Analgesia↗
PubMed1997

Use of concurrent chemotherapy, accelerated fractionation radiation, and surgery for patients with esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The results of a Phase II study of concurrent chemotherapy and accelerated fractionation radiation therapy followed by surgical resection for patients with both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus are presented. Pretreatment and postinduction staging were correlated with pathologic findings at surgery to assess the role of surgical resection and the predictive value of noninvasive staging techniques. METHODS: Patients received 2 induction courses with 4-day continuous intravenous infusions of cisplatin (20 mg/m2/day) and 5-fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2/day) beginning on Day 1 and Day 21, concurrent with a split course of accelerated fractionation radiation (1.5 grays [Gy] twice daily, to a total dose of 45 Gy). All patients were subsequently referred for surgical resection. A single, identical postoperative course of chemotherapy and 24 Gy accelerated fractionation radiation was planned for patients with residual tumor at surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were entered on this study; 72 patients were considered eligible and evaluable. Induction toxicity included nausea (85%), increased dysphagia (90%), neutropenia (<1000/mm3) (43%), thrombocytopenia (<20,000/mm3) (10%), and reversible nephrotoxicity (8%). Sixty-seven patients (93%) underwent surgery, and 65 (90%) were found to have resectable tumors. Twelve of these patients (18%) died perioperatively, and 18 (27%) had no residual pathologic evidence of disease. Resolution of symptoms and normalization of radiographic studies, endoscopy, or esophageal ultrasound did not identify pathologic complete responders accurately. No patient completing induction therapy and surgery experienced a locoregional recurrence. The Kaplan-Meier 4-year projected recurrence free and overall survival rates were 49% and 44%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although this regimen is feasible, there was significant preoperative toxicity and perioperative mortality. Nonetheless, the recurrence free and overall survival rates were encouraging. However, no staging tool can predict a pathologic complete response after induction therapy accurately, suggesting a continued need for surgical resection.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1997

Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Recommendations by the American Heart Association.

OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations issued by the American Heart Association last published in 1990 for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis in individuals at risk for this disease. PARTICIPANTS: An ad hoc writing group appointed by the American Heart Association for their expertise in endocarditis and treatment with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EVIDENCE: The recommendations in this article reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related endocarditis, in vitro susceptibility data of pathogens causing endocarditis, results of prophylactic studies in animal models of endocarditis, and retrospective analyses of human endocarditis cases in terms of antibiotic prophylaxis usage patterns and apparent prophylaxis failures. MEDLINE database searches from 1936 through 1996 were done using the root words endocarditis, bacteremia, and antibiotic prophylaxis. Recommendations in this document fall into evidence level III of the US Preventive Services Task Force categories of evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The recommendations were formulated by the writing group after specific therapeutic regimens were discussed. The consensus statement was subsequently reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee of the American Heart Association. These guidelines are meant to aid practitioners but are not intended as the standard of care or as a substitute for clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS: Major changes in the updated recommendations include the following: (1) emphasis that most cases of endocarditis are not attributable to an invasive procedure; (2) cardiac conditions are stratified into high-, moderate-, and negligible-risk categories based on potential outcome if endocarditis develops; (3) procedures that may cause bacteremia and for which prophylaxis is recommended are more clearly specified; (4) an algorithm was developed to more clearly define when prophylaxis is recommended for patients with mitral valve prolapse; (5) for oral or dental procedures the initial amoxicillin dose is reduced to 2 g, a follow-up antibiotic dose is no longer recommended, erythromycin is no longer recommended for penicillin-allergic individuals, but clindamycin and other alternatives are offered; and (6) for gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures, the prophylactic regimens have been simplified. These changes were instituted to more clearly define when prophylaxis is or is not recommended, improve practitioner and patient compliance, reduce cost and potential gastrointestinal adverse effects, and approach more uniform worldwide recommendations.

American Heart Association↗
PubMed1997

Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Recommendations by the American Heart Association.

OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations issued by the American Heart Association last published in 1990 for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis in individuals at risk for this disease. PARTICIPANTS: An ad hoc writing group appointed by the American Heart Association for their expertise in endocarditis and treatment with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EVIDENCE: The recommendations in this article reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related endocarditis, in vitro susceptibility data of pathogens causing endocarditis, results of prophylactic studies in animal models of endocarditis, and retrospective analyses of human endocarditis cases in terms of antibiotic prophylaxis usage patterns and apparent prophylaxis failures. MEDLINE database searches from 1936 through 1996 were done using the root words endocarditis, bacteremia, and antibiotic prophylaxis. Recommendations in this document fall into evidence level III of the US Preventive Services Task Force categories of evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The recommendations were formulated by the writing group after specific therapeutic regimens were discussed. The consensus statement was subsequently reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee of the American Heart Association. These guidelines are meant to aid practitioners but are not intended as the standard of care or as a substitute for clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS: Major changes in the updated recommendations include the following: (1) emphasis that most cases of endocarditis are not attributable to an invasive procedure; (2) cardiac conditions are stratified into high-, moderate-, and negligible-risk categories based on potential outcome if endocarditis develops; (3) procedures that may cause bacteremia and for which prophylaxis is recommended are more clearly specified; (4) an algorithm was developed to more clearly define when prophylaxis is recommended for patients with mitral valve prolapse; (5) for oral or dental procedures the initial amoxicillin dose is reduced to 2 g, a follow-up antibiotic dose is no longer recommended, erythromycin is no longer recommended for penicillin-allergic individuals, but clindamycin and other alternatives are offered; and (6) for gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures, the prophylactic regimens have been simplified. These changes were instituted to more clearly define when prophylaxis is or is not recommended, improve practitioner and patient compliance, reduce cost and potential gastrointestinal adverse effects, and approach more uniform worldwide recommendations.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1997

Does an open access system properly utilize endoscopic resources?

BACKGROUND: In an effort to maintain procedure volumes and control consultation costs, many gastrointestinal endoscopists and primary care providers have implemented systems of open access endoscopy. In these systems, specialists in digestive diseases perform endoscopy without prior consultation. The purpose of this study is to determine if indications for upper endoscopic procedures requested in an open access system conform to national practice guidelines and to establish the yield of diagnostic information relevant for patient care in this system. METHODS: Procedural indications and results for 3715 upper endoscopic procedures performed in an open access system were recorded in a computer database. The practice guideline "Appropriate Use of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy" (AUGE) of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was used to determine appropriateness of procedural indications. RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of procedures were performed for indications listed in the AUGE, and 59% resulted in findings relevant to patient care. Specialists requested endoscopy more frequently for "approved" indications than did nonspecialists (p = .004) and more frequently had findings relevant to patient care (p < .001). Findings relevant to patient care are significantly more frequent for some indications listed in the AUGE compared to others (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to practice guidelines can and does occur in an open access system. Specialists request endoscopy more frequently for appropriate indications compared to nonspecialists and have a higher yield of information relevant to patient care. Further refinement and better definition of some indications within the AUGE are needed to increase the clinical utility of this document.

Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal↗
PubMed1997

Treatment and referral guidelines in gastroenterology.

Practice guidelines have become an integral part of clinical practice. There are inherent potential problems involving their source, methodology, and measurement of their impact. Physicians may understandably have reservations about embracing practice guidelines. Such guidelines, however, offer the opportunity to ensure continued quality while controlling cost and resource utilization.

Gastroenterology↗
PubMed1997

Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: recommendations by the American Heart Association.

OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations issued by the American Heart Association last published in 1990 for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis in individuals at risk for this disease. PARTICIPANTS: An ad hoc writing group appointed by the American Heart Association for their expertise in endocarditis and treatment with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EVIDENCE: The recommendations in this article reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related endocarditis, in vitro susceptibility data of pathogens causing endocarditis, results of prophylactic studies in animal models of endocarditis, and retrospective analyses of human endocarditis cases in terms of antibiotic prophylaxis usage patterns and apparent prophylaxis failures. MEDLINE database searches from 1936 through 1996 were done using the root words endocarditis, bacteremia, and antibiotic prophylaxis. Recommendations in this document fall into evidence level III of the US Preventive Services Task Force categories of evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The recommendations were formulated by the writing group after specific therapeutic regimens were discussed. The consensus statement was subsequently reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee of the American Heart Association. These guidelines are meant to aid practitioners but are not intended as the standard of care or as a substitute for clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS: Major changes in the updated recommendations include the following: (1) emphasis that most cases of endocarditis are not attributable to an invasive procedure; (2) cardiac conditions are stratified into high-, moderate-, and negligible-risk categories based on potential outcome if endocarditis develops; (3) procedures that may cause bacteremia and for which prophylaxis is recommended are more clearly specified; (4) an algorithm was developed to more clearly define when prophylaxis is recommended for patients with mitral valve prolapse; (5) for oral or dental procedures the initial amoxicillin dose is reduced to 2 g, a follow-up antibiotic dose is no longer recommended, erythromycin is no longer recommended for penicillin-allergic individuals, but clindamycin and other alternatives are offered; and (6) for gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures, the prophylactic regimens have been simplified. These changes were instituted to more clearly define when prophylaxis is or is not recommended, improve practitioner and patient compliance, reduce cost and potential gastrointestinal adverse effects, and approach more uniform worldwide recommendations.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1997

Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: recommendations by the American Heart Association.

OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations issued by the American Heart Association last published in 1990 for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis in individuals at risk for this disease. PARTICIPANTS: An ad hoc writing group appointed by the American Heart Association for their expertise in endocarditis and treatment with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EVIDENCE: The recommendations in this article reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related endocarditis, in vitro susceptibility data of pathogens causing endocarditis, results of prophylactic studies in animal models of endocarditis and retrospective analyses of human endocarditis cases in terms of antibiotic prophylaxis usage patterns and apparent prophylaxis failures. MEDLINE database searches from 1936 through 1996 were done using root words endocarditis, bacteremia and antibiotic prophylaxis. Recommendations in this document fall into evidence level III of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force categories of evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The recommendations were formulated by the writing group after specific therapeutic regimens were discussed. The consensus statement was subsequently reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee of the American Heart Association. These guidelines are meant to aid practitioners but are not intended as the standard of care or as a substitute for clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS: Major changes in the updated recommendations include the following: (1) emphasis that most cases of endocarditis are not attributable to an invasive procedure; (2) cardiac conditions are stratified into high-, moderate- and negligible-risk categories based on potential outcome if endocarditis develops; (3) procedures that may cause bacteremia and for which prophylaxis is recommended are more clearly specified; (4) an algorithm was developed to more clearly define when prophylaxis is recommended for patients with mitral valve prolapse; (5) for oral or dental procedures the initial amoxicillin dose is reduced to 2 g, a follow-up antibiotic dose is no longer recommended, erythromycin is no longer recommended for penicillin-allergic individuals, but clindamycin and other alternatives are offered.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1997

Advances in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma.

Recent changes in the epidemiology of esophageal carcinoma now recognize adenocarcinoma as the predominant histologic cell type. Barrett's esophagus and dysplasia in this epithelium identify patients who are at risk of developing invasive adenocarcinoma. This neoplasm is not a single entity with a consistently poor prognosis, and disease stage is important for determining therapy. These findings offer the potential for further development of therapeutic regimens. Endoscopic esophageal ultrasound is an accurate and reproducible staging tool. It allows the physician to determine clinical stage and modify treatment. T2 N0 M0 or lesser stage tumors have acceptable surgical cure rates, and patients should undergo immediate resection. Patients with more advanced T3 or N1 tumors have a potential for cure but do poorly with surgery alone. These patients should be considered for multimodality therapy. Palliative therapy should be given to patients with hematogenous metastatic disease. Treatment stratification by stage proves that esophageal carcinoma is not a uniformly fatal disease without hope for cure.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1997

Common variable immunodeficiency following Epstein-Barr virus infection.

The authors present a case of a patient who developed recurrent bacterial upper respiratory and pulmonary infections and marked hypogammaglobulinemia with a gradual decrease of serum IgG, IgA and IgM some months after acute Epstein-Barr virus infection. Test for identification of lymphocyte subpopulation showed increased CD8+ T-cells with a surface phenotype (CD8+, CD57+, HLA-DR+) characteristic of virus-induced, activated cytotoxic cells. Viral investigations showed a positive anti-EBNA titer, an IgG titer anti-VCA of 1:40, a negative IgG titer anti-EA and human immunodeficiency virus negativity. The authors conclude that these clinical features are indicative of possible common variable immunodeficiency following Epstein-Barr virus infection.

Adjuvants, Immunologic↗
PubMed1996

Treatment of cloverleaf skull syndrome.

Up to a few years ago, patients with cloverleaf skull deformity underwent partial surgery to relieve intracranial hypertension with poor functional and aesthetic results, often leading to relapses and reoperations, both in our own experience and in that of other authors. As of 1990, however, we started to use the technique described by Persing et al. to resolve the complex cloverleaf malformation in a single definitive procedure. Five patients, whose ages ranged from 2 months to 5 years, achieved satisfactory results both as regards relief from intracranial hypertension and preservation of visual acuity, and from the aesthetic viewpoint. Surgical approaches and their modifications are described.

Cephalometry↗