World neurosurgery · 2017
Quantitative Comparison of Three Endoscopic Approaches to the Parasellar Region: Laboratory Investigation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Belykh Evgenii, Yağmurlu Kaan, Hong Yuan, Mooney Michael A, Bozkurt Baran, Byvaltsev Vadim A, Nakaji Peter, Preul Mark C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal and contralateral sublabial transmaxillary approaches are used for approaching parasellar lesions. The aim of this anatomical study was to compare endoscopic endonasal uninostril and binostril (contralateral) and contralateral sublabial transmaxillary approaches via a quantitative analysis of exposure limits and instrument working avenues.
METHODS: Six formalin-fixed silicone-injected adult cadaveric heads (12 sides) were studied. The surgical working area, depth of the surgical corridor, angle of attack, and surgical freedom were measured and compared for the 3 approaches.
RESULTS: The endoscopic binostril endonasal approach to the parasellar area provided greater surgical freedom in the opticocarotid recess (OCR) and superior orbital fissure (SOF) compared with that of the uninostril endonasal approach (OCR, P < 0.01; SOF, P = 0.01) and the contralateral sublabial transmaxillary approach (OCR, P = 0.01; SOF, P = 0.03). The horizontal and vertical angles of attack with the binostril endonasal approach also were greater than those of the uninostril approach (OCR, P ≤ 0.05; SOF, P ≤ 0.01) and the contralateral transmaxillary approach (OCR, P ≤ 0.01; SOF, P ≤ 0.01). However, the contralateral sublabial transmaxillary approach provided more lateral exposure than the uninostril or binostril endonasal approach to the parasellar area, and it enabled a shorter surgical trajectory to the contralateral parasellar area (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: An anatomical comparison of the 3 endoscopic approaches to the parasellar area showed that the binostril approach provides greater exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation. The contralateral transmaxillary route provided a more lateral view, increasing exposure on average by 48%, with shorter surgical depth; however, surgical freedom was inferior to that of the binostril approach.
METHODS: Six formalin-fixed silicone-injected adult cadaveric heads (12 sides) were studied. The surgical working area, depth of the surgical corridor, angle of attack, and surgical freedom were measured and compared for the 3 approaches.
RESULTS: The endoscopic binostril endonasal approach to the parasellar area provided greater surgical freedom in the opticocarotid recess (OCR) and superior orbital fissure (SOF) compared with that of the uninostril endonasal approach (OCR, P < 0.01; SOF, P = 0.01) and the contralateral sublabial transmaxillary approach (OCR, P = 0.01; SOF, P = 0.03). The horizontal and vertical angles of attack with the binostril endonasal approach also were greater than those of the uninostril approach (OCR, P ≤ 0.05; SOF, P ≤ 0.01) and the contralateral transmaxillary approach (OCR, P ≤ 0.01; SOF, P ≤ 0.01). However, the contralateral sublabial transmaxillary approach provided more lateral exposure than the uninostril or binostril endonasal approach to the parasellar area, and it enabled a shorter surgical trajectory to the contralateral parasellar area (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: An anatomical comparison of the 3 endoscopic approaches to the parasellar area showed that the binostril approach provides greater exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation. The contralateral transmaxillary route provided a more lateral view, increasing exposure on average by 48%, with shorter surgical depth; however, surgical freedom was inferior to that of the binostril approach.