World neurosurgery · 2019
Comparative Analysis of the Subtonsillar, Far-Lateral, Extreme-Lateral, and Endoscopic Far-Medial Approaches to the Lower Clivus: An Anatomical Cadaver Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Minghao, Chae Ricky, Joseph Shehata, Vigo Vera, Winkler Ethan, McDermott Michael W, El-Sayed Ivan H, Abla Adib A, Rubio Roberto Rodriguez
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The lower clivus (LC) is one of the most difficult areas to access in neurosurgery. Several microsurgical approaches to the LC have been reported, including the subtonsillar, far-lateral (FL), extreme-lateral (EL), and endoscopic far-medial (Endo-FM). However, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal approach. We aimed to quantify and compare the surgical exposure and freedom (angle of attack) for various targets at the LC using these 4 surgical approaches.
METHODS: The subtonsillar, FL, EL, and Endo-FM approaches were performed on 5 cadaveric specimens (total 10 sides). Surgical exposure and freedom were measured using the neuronavigation system.
RESULTS: At the LC, the Endo-FM approach provided the greatest area of exposure (459.3 ± 82.2 mm2). For surgical freedom, the EL approach provided the greatest angle of attack at the jugular foramen (98.1° ± 9.2°) and hypoglossal canal (128.8° ± 26.1°). The Endo-FM was the only approach that provided access to the midline of the LC in all specimens. However, the surgical freedom at the midline (20.9° ± 2.4° at the level of the jugular foramen; 24.2° ± 2.9° at the level of hypoglossal canal) was limited by its deep surgical corridor (104.3 ± 11.2 mm) compared with the EL and FL approaches.
CONCLUSION: The Endo-FM approach provided the greatest surgical freedom at the ventral aspect but the least freedom at the lateral aspect. The EL approach provided maximal values for most parameters among the open approaches; however, the craniotomy with the EL approach was the most complicated. Our quantitative results could guide neurosurgeons in preoperative planning for LC lesions, including awareness of the maximum exposure limits and the advantages and disadvantages of each surgical approach.
METHODS: The subtonsillar, FL, EL, and Endo-FM approaches were performed on 5 cadaveric specimens (total 10 sides). Surgical exposure and freedom were measured using the neuronavigation system.
RESULTS: At the LC, the Endo-FM approach provided the greatest area of exposure (459.3 ± 82.2 mm2). For surgical freedom, the EL approach provided the greatest angle of attack at the jugular foramen (98.1° ± 9.2°) and hypoglossal canal (128.8° ± 26.1°). The Endo-FM was the only approach that provided access to the midline of the LC in all specimens. However, the surgical freedom at the midline (20.9° ± 2.4° at the level of the jugular foramen; 24.2° ± 2.9° at the level of hypoglossal canal) was limited by its deep surgical corridor (104.3 ± 11.2 mm) compared with the EL and FL approaches.
CONCLUSION: The Endo-FM approach provided the greatest surgical freedom at the ventral aspect but the least freedom at the lateral aspect. The EL approach provided maximal values for most parameters among the open approaches; however, the craniotomy with the EL approach was the most complicated. Our quantitative results could guide neurosurgeons in preoperative planning for LC lesions, including awareness of the maximum exposure limits and the advantages and disadvantages of each surgical approach.