Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD
Résumé : International audience
OBJECTIVE: To analyze complications of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETS) for nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas (NFPAs).ăMETHODS: A retrospective study of 300 NFPAs was performed. Complications and factors that could influence these complications were analyzed.ăRESULTS: Visual and pituitary functions worsened in 2.4% and 13.7% of cases, respectively. Postoperative diabetes insipidus was permanent in 6.2% of cases. Postoperative meningitis occurred in 3.3% of patients. Meningitis was strongly associated with intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks (P = 0.01), postoperative CSF leaks (P = 0.0001), and operation times longer than 1 hour (P = 0.023). Detection of Staphylococcus aureus and preoperative treatment with mupirocin in the nostrils did not impact the occurrence of meningitis. Two patients with meningitis died (unique causes of death). Postoperative CSF leaks occurred in 2.7% of cases and were associated with intraoperative CSF leaks (P = 0.007) and permanent diabetes insipidus (P = 0.028). The rate of CSF leak decreased from 4% to 0.8% (P = 0.048) after we moved from a soft to hard reconstruction of the sella. The rate of postoperative epistaxis decreased from 6.7% to 1.25% after we stopped using monopolar coagulation (P = 0.013).ăCONCLUSIONS: ETS permits a wide view, allowing good conditions for a satisfactory resection in the majority of NFPAs. Some pitfalls of endoscopy can lead to complications that improve with modification of the operative technique (i.e., CSF leak and postoperative epistaxis). This study confirms an acceptable rate of complications associated with ETS.
World Neurosurgery

hal-01474296
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01474296
DOI : 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.059
PUBMED : 26902781

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490