Search

The management of meningioma in elderly patients (MEP) presents a complex and evolving challenge. Data available offer conflicting information on treatment options and complications. This survey aimed to examine the current approach to MEP, comparing the national profile to data in the current literature. A survey addressing the treatments options and management of meningioma in elderly was designed on behalf of SINch® (Società Italiana di Neurochirurgia) and sent via email to all Chiefs of Neurosurgical Departments. The survey remained open for responses from May 5th, 2022, until November 21st, 2022. A search of the literature published between January 2000 and March 2023, in accordance to PRISMA guidelines, was included. A total of 51 Neurosurgical centers participated in the survey. The caseload profile of each center influences the choice of treatment selection (Stereotactic Radiosurgery versus open surgery) (p = 0.01) and the consolidated practice of discussing cases within a multidisciplinary group (p = 0.02). The pooled meta-analysis demonstrated a significant increased risk in the elderly group for permanent deficits (p < 0.00001), postoperative infections (p = 0.0004) and hemorrhage (p = 0.0001), perioperative mortality (p < 0.00001), and medical complications (p < 0.00001) as compared to the young population. This study presents the initial comprehensive analysis of the existing trends in the surgical management of MEP in Italy. The significant variation in practices primarily stems from the absence of standardized guidelines. While most centers have adopted an integrated approach, there is a need to promote a multidisciplinary care model. Prospective studies are needed to gather robust evidence in this clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cortical intracerebral electrical stimulation is an important tool for language mapping in the presurgical work‐up of patients with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Language mapping with stereo–electroencephalography (EEG) is usually performed by high‐frequency stimulations (HFS: 50 Hz), whereas low‐frequency stimulations (LFS: 1 Hz) are usually considered useful for primary cortices mapping. Little is known in literature about "intermediate" frequencies (IFS: 6–15 Hz). Our objective is to explore the clinical usefulness of IFS in language mapping and identify factors, beyond the electrical parameters, that impact the mapping. Methods: We studied 23 patients submitted to stereo‐EEG for presurgical evaluation. Language mapping was performed in the anterior, posterior and/or basal language region of the dominant hemisphere for language. We included all contact positions within these regions stimulated by HFS (50 Hz, 5 s, 1–3 mA) and IFS (6‐15 Hz, 15 s, 5 mA). We compared the capability of both stimulation methods to induce a language deficit without afterdischarges (ADs), and we analyzed factors related to clinical examination, region, and stimulation technique by multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 211 stimulations (98 HFS, 113 IFS) in 70 cortical sites within the anterior (84 stimulations), posterior (137), and basal language region (60) were included. IFS induced more frequently language deficits not associated to AD compared to HFS (37.1% vs 25.7%, p =.0043), whereas HFS provoked more diffuse AD (34.7% vs 15.0%, p =.001). Investigating multiple language functions increased the probability of revealing a deficit (odds ratio [OR] 3.16, p =.0016), independently of the stimulation method. Significance: IFS are valuable for language mapping, thereby improving the probability of inducing a clinical deficit not accompanied by an AD. The completeness of the clinical examination independently affects the sensitivity of the mapping. IFS are a new tool with potential usefulness for the cortical mapping of other associative cortical regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hazelnuts are a leading trigger of food allergy. To date, several molecular components of hazelnut are available for component-resolved diagnosis. However, little is known about how simultaneous sensitization to multiple allergens affects the severity of the hazelnut-induced reaction. In a previous study, our group demonstrated a lower risk of systemic reactions to peach in patients sensitized to both Pru p 3 and Pru p 1 than in the patient monosensitized to peach LTP. We aimed to assess whether this was also true in hazelnut allergy in a cohort of adult patients. Methods: Patients were selected based on a history of symptoms such as urticaria, vomiting, diarrhea, asthma, and anaphylaxis indicative of hazelnut IgE-mediated food allergy and graded according to a clinical severity scale. For all patients, specific IgE was determined for Cor a 1 and Cor a 8 and, for most patients, also Cor a 9. Patients were offered an oral food challenge in open format (OFC) with a cocoa-based roasted hazelnut spread on a voluntary basis in order to prescribe an appropriate diet. Results: A total of two hundred and fourteen patients were recruited. Among these, 43 patients were monosensitized to Cor a 8. One hundred and seventy-one patients were sensitized to Cor a 1 (79.9%), and, among them, 48/171 (28.1%) were also Cor a 8 positive. Cor a 9 was evaluated in 124/214 patients, testing positive in 21/124 (16.9%). Patients monosensitized to Cor a 8 experienced systemic reactions more frequently than those sensitized to Cor a 1 ± Cor a 8 (p < 0.00001), with significantly more severe reactions (p < 0.0005) and testing more frequently positive at OFC (p < 0.0001). Regarding Cor a 9, the sensitized patients were significantly younger (p = 0.0013) and showed reactions of similar severity to patients who tested Cor a 9 negative, and these reactions were milder than in patients monosensitized only to Cor a 8. Discussion/Conclusion: Sensitization to Cor a 1 seems to protect from the development of the severe systemic reactions induced by Cor a 8 sensitization, Cor a 9 does not influence the severity of symptoms in adult patients. The OFC with roasted hazelnut may help in dietary guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Wheat is the most important cereal for human nutrition but its high consumption is associated to an increasing complaint of wheat-related disorders, many of which are allergic in nature and different in respect to the involved allergens. In this study, we compared the clinical aspects of wheat allergy presented by patients sensitized to Tri a 19 in respect to those presented by patients sensitized to Tri a 14. Methods: With this aim, we selected patients sensitized to 1 or both of the 2 allergens, and among these we identified those who were really wheat allergic and reactive on the basis of a standardized methodology. We evaluated the clinical features such as the kind and severity of symptoms, the coexistence of triggering factors such as physical exercise and NSAIDs and alcohol consumption, and the association with other allergens and with various immunologic parameters. Wheat allergy in Tri a 19 sensitized patients was confirmed through a questionnaire while the patients sensitized to Tri a 14 underwent wheat challenge with 100 g of pasta followed by exercise on a treadmill. Results: Seventy-nine patients sensitized to Tri a 14 and 40 patients sensitized to Tri a 19 were recruited. The 2 sensitizations were independent with a significant inverse relation (p < 0.00001). The Tri a 19 sensitized patients presented, in respect to the Tri a 14 sensitized ones, an older age (p = 0.0017), a higher risk to be wheat allergic (p < 0.0001), a higher severity of the reactions (p < 0.00001) and a higher association with some cofactors, namely alcohol (p < 0.0005) and physical exercise (p = 0.003). On the contrary, Tri a 14 sensitization was associated with atopy (p < 0.0001), with a higher probability of patients being asymptomatic (p < 0.0001) and being sensitized to other foods, in particular to nuts and cereals (p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Sensitization to Tri a 19 or Tri a 14 determines different clinical pictures. In particular, sensitization to Tri a 19 implies a higher probability of severe reactions, even dependent on daily triggers, while that to Tri a 14 implies a higher cross-reactivity with other foods but it's more frequently asymptomatic, making a food challenge necessary to prevent useless food avoidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]