Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian Journal of Neurosurgery 2018; 07(01): 005-007
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1649525
Review Article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Lipomyelomeningocele—Controversies in Management

Abhishek Singh
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, I.P.G.M.E.&R., Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Samarendranath Ghosh
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, I.P.G.M.E.&R., Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Anup Kr. Chaudhuri
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, I.P.G.M.E.&R., Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Shahid Iftekhar Sadique
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, I.P.G.M.E.&R., Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Subhamitra Chaudhuri
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, I.P.G.M.E.&R., Kolkata, West Bengal, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 May 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Management of lipomyelomeningocele is one of the most discussed and controversial topics in recent years. Till date, there is no consensus on the most appropriate mode of management for lipomyelomeningocele, particularly in asymptomatic patients. This article tries to sort out controversies associated with lipomyelomeningocele based on various literatures and also takes into account patient profile of a developing country.

Keywords

lipomyelomeningocele - controversies - management
 

  • References

  • 1 Johnson A. Fatty tumor from the sacrum of a child, connected with the spinal membranes. Trans Pathol Soc (London) 1857; 8: 16-18
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Rogers HM, Long DM, Chou SN, French LA. Lipomas of the spinal cord and cauda equina. J Neurosurg 1971; 34 (03) 349-354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 McLone DG, Naidich TP. Terminal myelocystocele. Neurosurgery 1985; 16 (01) 36-43
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Naidich TP, McLone DG. Spinal dysraphism. In: Newton TH, Potts DG. eds. Modern Neuroradiology. Computed Tomography of the Spine and Spinal Cord. Vol. 1 San Francisco, CL: Clavadel Press; 1983: 299-315
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Chapman PH. Congenital intraspinal lipomas: anatomic considerations and surgical treatment. Childs Brain 1982; 9 (01) 37-47
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 McLone DG, Mutluer S, Naidich TP. Lipomeningoceles of the conus medullaris. In: Raimondi AJ. ed. Concepts in Pediatric Neurosurgery. Vol. 3 Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger; 1983: 170-177
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Sutton LN. Lipomyelomeningocele. Neurosurg Clin N Am 1995; 6 (02) 325-338
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Keating MA, Rink RC, Bauer SB. et al. Neurourological implications of the changing approach in management of occult spinal lesions. J Urol 1988; 140 (05) Pt 2) 1299-1301
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kanev PM, Bierbrauer KS. Reflections on the natural history of lipomyelomeningocele. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995; 22 (03) 137-140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hoffman HJ, Taecholarn C, Hendrick EB, Humphreys RP. Management of lipomyelomeningoceles. Experience at the hospital for sick children, Toronto. J Neurosurg 1985; 62 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ramamurthi B. Problems in spina bifida in developing countries. J Indian Med Assoc 1990; 88 (06) 151-152
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Macejko AM, Cheng EY, Yerkes EB, Meyer T, Bowman RM, Kaplan WE. Clinical urological outcomes following primary tethered cord release in children younger than 3 years. J Urol 2007; 178 (04) Pt 2) 1738-1742 discussion 1742–1743
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cochrane DD, Finley C, Kestle J, Steinbok P. The patterns of late deterioration in patients with transitional lipomyelomeningocele. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2000; 10 (Suppl (01) 13-17
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar