Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2018
Supraorbital vs Endo-Orbital Routes to the Lateral Skull Base: A Quantitative and Qualitative Anatomic Study.
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.
Di Somma Alberto, Andaluz Norberto, Cavallo Luigi Maria, Keller Jeffrey T, Solari Domenico, Zimmer Lee A, de Notaris Matteo, Zuccarello Mario, Cappabianca Paolo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Various extensions of the supraorbital approach reach the lateral and parasellar middle cranial fossa regions by removing the orbital rim and greater/lesser sphenoid wings. Recent proposals of a purely endoscopic ventral transorbital pathway to these regions heighten the need to compare these surgical windows.
OBJECTIVE: To detail the lateral and parasellar middle cranial fossa regions and quantify exposures by 2 surgical windows (transcranial and transorbital) through anatomic study.
METHODS: In 5 cadaveric specimens (10 sides), dissections consisted of 3 stages: stage 1 began with the supraorbital approach via the eyebrow; stage 2, endo-orbital approach via the superior eyelid, continued with removal of lesser and greater sphenoid wings; and stage 3, extended supraorbital, re-evaluated the gains of stage 2 from the perspective of stage 1. Operative working areas were quantified in Sylvian, anterolateral temporal, and parasellar regions; bone removal volumes were measured at each stage (nonpaired Student t-test).
RESULTS: Visualization into the anterolateral temporal and Sylvian areas, though varied in perspective, were comparable with either eyelid or transcranial routes. Compared with transcranial views through a supraorbital window, the eyelid approach significantly increased exposure in the parasellar region with wider angle of attack (P < .01) and achieved comparable bone removal volumes.
CONCLUSION: Stage 2's unique anatomic view of the lateral and parasellar middle cranial fossa regions paves the way for possible surgical application to select pathologies typically treated via transcranial approaches. Disadvantages may be the surgeon's unfamiliarity with the anatomy of this purely endoscopic, ventral route and difficulties of dural and orbital repair.
OBJECTIVE: To detail the lateral and parasellar middle cranial fossa regions and quantify exposures by 2 surgical windows (transcranial and transorbital) through anatomic study.
METHODS: In 5 cadaveric specimens (10 sides), dissections consisted of 3 stages: stage 1 began with the supraorbital approach via the eyebrow; stage 2, endo-orbital approach via the superior eyelid, continued with removal of lesser and greater sphenoid wings; and stage 3, extended supraorbital, re-evaluated the gains of stage 2 from the perspective of stage 1. Operative working areas were quantified in Sylvian, anterolateral temporal, and parasellar regions; bone removal volumes were measured at each stage (nonpaired Student t-test).
RESULTS: Visualization into the anterolateral temporal and Sylvian areas, though varied in perspective, were comparable with either eyelid or transcranial routes. Compared with transcranial views through a supraorbital window, the eyelid approach significantly increased exposure in the parasellar region with wider angle of attack (P < .01) and achieved comparable bone removal volumes.
CONCLUSION: Stage 2's unique anatomic view of the lateral and parasellar middle cranial fossa regions paves the way for possible surgical application to select pathologies typically treated via transcranial approaches. Disadvantages may be the surgeon's unfamiliarity with the anatomy of this purely endoscopic, ventral route and difficulties of dural and orbital repair.