Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 158, Issue 4, pp 703–710 | Cite as

Comparison of surgical exposure and maneuverability associated with microscopy and endoscopy in the retrolabyrinthine and transcrusal approaches to the retrochiasmatic region: a cadaveric study

  • Jie Yang
  • Fang Zhang
  • Aiguo Xu
  • Huadong Li
  • Zihai DingEmail author
Technical Note - Neurosurgical Anatomy

Abstract

Background

The retrolabyrinthine and transcrusal approaches (RLA and TCA, respectively) are the two most often used posterior transpetrosal approaches that are used to treat lesions in the retrochiasmatic region. Endoscopes are increasingly used in neurosurgical practice. To determine whether a difference exists between the two transpetrosal approaches in the retrochiasmatic region, we evaluated and compared the exposure and maneuverability associated with the microscope and the endoscope in these approaches.

Methods

Seven formalin-fixed cadaveric heads were dissected bilaterally through the two approaches: four for evaluation and three injected with colored latex for photography. The retrochiasmatic region was divided into four sub-compartments: the compartment before the infundibulum, which was further divided into two parts, (1) the ipsilateral and (2) the contralateral compartments; (3) the retroinfundibulum compartment; (4) the third ventricle. After each approach, exposure and maneuverability of the structures in these four compartments obtained by microscopy and endoscopy were scored under a guidance of a numerical grading system for further comparison.

Results

The TCA provided better exposure and maneuverability at the retrochiasmatic region than the RLA in both the microscopy model [scores of 39.75 ± 2.12 and 32.38 ± 2.56 respectively (p < 0.05)] and the endoscopy model [scores of 82.13 ± 3.40 and 43.75 ± 1.67 respectively (p < 0.05)].

Conclusions

The TCA is better than the RLA at offering exposure and manipulation to structures in the retrochiasmatic region, especially in patients whose lesion is located high into the third ventricle and/or expanded into the contralateral part. Endoscopes may be helpful in TCA in terms of exposing and maneuvering structures in the contralateral and interpeduncle fossa areas. However, in RLA, not enough room is available for simultaneously maneuvering an endoscope and a surgical instrument.

Keywords

Retrochiasmatic region Posterior transpetrosal approach Transcrusal approach Retrolabyrinthine approach Endoscopy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflicts of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with any organization with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures in this study were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

This study included no individual participant.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Mefty O, Ayoubi S, Kadri PA (2007) The petrosal approach for the total removal of giant retrochiasmatic craniopharyngiomas in children. J Neurosurg 106:87–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Mefty O, Ayoubi S, Kadri PA (2008) The petrosal approach for the resection of retrochiasmatic craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 62:S331–S335, S335-S336 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Golshani KJ, Lalwani K, Delashaw JB, Selden NR (2009) Modified orbitozygomatic craniotomy for craniopharyngioma resection in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 4:345–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim SK, Kim YH, Park CK, Kim DG, Jung HW (2014) Extended endoscopic endonasal approach for recurrent or residual adult craniopharyngiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156:1917–1922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kunihiro N, Goto T, Ishibashi K, Ohata K (2014) Surgical outcomes of the minimum anterior and posterior combined transpetrosal approach for resection of retrochiasmatic craniopharyngiomas with complicated conditions. J Neurosurg 120:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shirane R, Hayashi T, Tominaga T (2005) Fronto-basal interhemispheric approach for craniopharyngiomas extending outside the suprasellar cistern. Childs Nerv Syst 21:669–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yasargil MG, Curcic M, Kis M, Siegenthaler G, Teddy PJ, Roth P (1990) Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg 73:3–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oyama K, Prevedello DM, Ditzel FL, Muto J, Gun R, Kerr EE, Otto BA, Carrau RL (2014) Anatomic comparison of the endonasal and transpetrosal approaches for interpeduncular fossa access. Neurosurg Focus 37:E12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hakuba A, Nishimura S, Inoue Y (1985) Transpetrosal-Transtentorial Approach and Its Application in the Therapy of Retrochiasmatic Craniopharyngiomas. Surg Neurol 4:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horgan MA, Delashaw JB, Schwartz MS, Kellogg JX, Spektor S, McMenomey SO (2001) Transcrusal approach to the petroclival region with hearing preservation. Technical note and illustrative cases. J Neurosurg 94:660–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chanda A, Nanda A (2002) Partial labyrinthectomy petrous apicectomy approach to the petroclival region: an anatomic and technical study. Neurosurgery 51(147-159):159–160Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horgan MA, Anderson GJ, Kellogg JX, Schwartz MS, Spektor S, McMenomey SO, Delashaw JB (2000) Classification and quantification of the petrosal approach to the petroclival region. J Neurosurg 93:108–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tang CT, Baidya NB, Ammirati M (2013) Endoscope-assisted supraorbital approach to the retroinfundibular area: a cadaveric study. Neurosurg Rev 36(249-256):256–257Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinoshita M, Nakada M, Tanaka S, Ozaki N, Hamada J, Hayashi Y (2011) Transcrusal approach to the retrochiasmatic region with special reference to temporal lobe retraction: an anatomical study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153:659–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, de Divitiis O, Messina A (2007) Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for extrasellar craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 61(219-227):228Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang CT, Kurozumi K, Pillai P, Filipce V, Chiocca EA, Ammirati M (2013) Quantitative analysis of surgical exposure and maneuverability associated with the endoscope and the microscope in the retrosigmoid and various posterior petrosectomy approaches to the petroclival region using computer tomograpy-based frameless stereotax. A cadaveric study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 115:1058–1062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sekhar LN, Schessel DA, Bucur SD, Raso JL, Wright DC (1999) Partial labyrinthectomy petrous apicectomy approach to neoplastic and vascular lesions of the petroclival area. Neurosurgery 44(537-550):550–552Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tang CT, Baidya NB, Ammirati M (2013) Endoscope-assisted neurovascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve: a cadaveric study. Neurosurg Rev 36:403–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ammirati M, Bernardo A (1998) Analytical evaluation of complex anterior approaches to the cranial base: an anatomic study. Neurosurgery 43(1398-1407):1407–1408Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fries G, Perneczky A (1998) Endoscope-assisted brain surgery: part 2—analysis of 380 procedures. Neurosurgery 42(226-231):231–232Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hori T, Okada Y, Maruyama T, Chernov M, Attia W (2006) Endoscope-controlled removal of intrameatal vestibular schwannomas. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 49:25–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iacoangeli M, Salvinelli F, Di Rienzo A, Gladi M, Alvaro L, Greco F, Carassiti M, Scerrati M (2013) Microsurgical endoscopy-assisted presigmoid retrolabyrinthine approach as a minimally invasive surgical option for the treatment of medium to large vestibular schwannomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:663–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wackym PA, King WA, Meyer GA, Poe DS (2002) Endoscopy in neuro-otologic surgery. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 35:297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bernardo A, Boeris D, Evins AI, Anichini G, Stieg PE (2014) A combined dual-port endoscope-assisted pre- and retrosigmoid approach to the cerebellopontine angle: an extensive anatomo-surgical study. Neurosurg Rev 37:597–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Figueiredo EG, Zabramski JM, Deshmukh P, Crawford NR, Preul MC, Spetzler RF (2006) Anatomical and quantitative description of the transcavernous approach to interpeduncular and prepontine cisterns. Technical note. J Neurosurg 104:957–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie Yang
    • 1
  • Fang Zhang
    • 2
  • Aiguo Xu
    • 3
  • Huadong Li
    • 4
  • Zihai Ding
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Minimal Invasive Surgical Anatomy, Department of Anatomy, School of Basic Medicine ScienceSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of OtolaryngologyThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of Otolaryngology, The First College of Clinical Medical ScienceChina Three Gorges University & Yichang Central People’s HospitalYichangChina
  4. 4.Department of NeurosurgeryLingyi People’s HospitalLingyiChina

Personalised recommendations