Table 1 Clinical characteristics of oral intraneural perineuriomas (INPN)
Authors/year | Patient no. | Age | Sex | Location | Size (cm) | Treatment | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Damm et al. 2003 [5] | 1 | 26 | F | Tongue | 0.75 | Resection | ND |
Huguet et al. 2004 [1] | 2 | 64 | M | Mandible | 2.0 | Resection | ND |
Da Cruz Perez et al. 2006 [6] | 3 | 12 | M | Tongue | 0.6 | Resection | 6m NR |
Siponen et al. 2007 [7] | 4 | 18 | F | Buccal mucosa | 2.0 | Resection | 2y NR |
Boyanton et al. 2007 [8] | 5 | 6 | F | Tongue | 0.8 | Resection | 4m NR |
Dundr et al. 2007 [9] | 6 | 16 | M | Buccal mucosa | 1.5 | Resection | 2y NR |
Kang et al. 2007 [10] | 7 | 16 | M | Tongue | 10 | Resection | 6m NR |
Tanaka et al. 2009 [11] | 8 | 34 | F | Tongue | 0.6 | Resection | 8m NR |
Vencio et al. 2009 [2] | 9 | 59 | F | Mandible | N/A | Resection | 3y NR |
Rocha et al. 2009 [12] | 10 | 47 | F | Tongue | 1.0 | Resection | 1y NR |
Rocha et al. 2009 [12] | 11 | 37 | M | Lower lip | 0.5 | Resection | 1y NR |
Hata et al. 2011 [3] | 12 | 42 | F | Mandible | 1.8 | Resection | 6m NR |
Hirano et al. 2013 [13] | 13 | 14 | M | Tongue | 4.0 | Resection | 6m NR |
Gomes da Silva et al. 2016 [14] | 14 | 84 | M | Lower buccal fold | 2.0 | Resection | 5y8m NR |
Present case 2018 | 15 | 43 | M | Mandible | 3.2 | Resection | 3y NR |