Advertisement

Stability-Sparing Endoscopic Endonasal Odontoidectomy in a Malformative Craniovertebral Junction: Case Report and Biomechanical Considerations

  • Matteo Vitali
  • Frank Rikki Canevari
  • Andrea Cattalani
  • Teresa Somma
  • Vincenzo Maria Grasso
  • Andrea Barbanera
Chapter
Part of the Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement book series (NEUROCHIRURGICA, volume 125)

Abstract

Background: The craniovertebral junction (CVJ) is often involved in a wide range of congenital, developmental and acquired pathologies that can create bony and ligamentous instability or cause direct compression on the medulla and cervical spine cord, resulting in significant impairment. Atlas assimilation is the most common malformation in the CVJ and can be frequently associated with basilar invagination (BI) and Chiari malformation (CM) type I. Posterior atlas assimilation more frequently leads to BI type II with a mass effect on neural structures but usually no signs of biomechanical instability. Operative approaches to the CVJ have undergone a remarkable evolution and can be divided into ventral, lateral and dorsal ones. In this kind of surgery, it is vital to detect and eventually treat any CVJ instability.

Case Description: We present a case of CVJ malformation comprising assimilation of the posterior arch of the atlas, BI type II and CM, treated by endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy and partial clivus removal to spare CVJ stability.

Conclusion: Neurological and biomechanical analysis of all CVJ malformations permits stratification and selection of those cases that can be managed by simple, direct, minimally invasive decompression with no need for surgical fusion.

Keywords

Cranio-vertebral junction Cranio-cervical malformation Atlas assimilation Basilar invagination Chiari I malformation Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy 

Abbreviations

3D

Three-dimensional

BI

Basilar invagination

CM

Chiari malformation

CSF

Cerebro-spinal fluid

CT

Computed tomography

CTA

Computed tomography angiography

CVJ

Craniovertebral junction

EEG

Electroencephalography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NPL

Nasopalatine line

PL

Palatine line

RX

Radiography

Notes

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

No financial support was received for this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Menezes AH, Traynelis VC. Anatomy and biomechanics of normal craniovertebral junction (a) and biomechanics of stabilization (b). Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24(10):1091–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menezes AH, Vogel TW. Specific entities affecting the craniocervical region: syndromes affecting the craniocervical junction. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24(10):1155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nishikawa M, Sakamoto H, Hakuba A, et al. Pathogenesis of Chiari malformation: a morphometric study of the posterior cranial fossa. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:40–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botelho RV, Ferreira ED. Angular craniometry in craniocervical junction malformation. Neurosurg Rev. 2013;36:604–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferreira ED, Botelho RV. Atlas assimilation patterns in different types of adult craniocervical junction malformations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(22):1763–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ravikumar VR. Asymmetrical assimilation of atlas vertebra. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2013;2:4102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goel A, Bhatjiwale M, Desai K. Basilar invagination: a study based on 190 surgically treated patients. J Neurosurg. 1998;88:962–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menezes AH, Traynelis VC, Gantz BJ. Surgical approaches to the craniovertebral junction. Clin Neurosurg. 1994;41:187–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menezes AH. Surgical approaches: postoperative care and complications “transoral–transpalatopharyngeal approach to the craniocervical junction”. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24(10):1187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crockard HA. Transoral surgery: some lessons learned. Br J Neurosurg. 1995;9(3):283–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alfieri A, Jho HD, Tschabitscher M. Endoscopic endonasal approach to the ventral cranio-cervical junction: anatomical study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2002;144(3):219–25. discussion 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kassam AB, Snyderman C, Gardner P, Carrau R, Spiro R. The expanded endonasal approach: a fully endoscopic transnasal approach and resection of the odontoid process: technical case report. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(1 Suppl):E213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nayak JV, Gardner PA, Vescan AD, Carrau RL, Kassam AB, Snyderman CH. Experience with the expanded endonasal approach for resection of the odontoid process in rheumatoid disease. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21(5):601–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolinsky JP, Sciubba DM, Suk I, Gokaslan ZL. Endoscopic image-guided odontoidectomy for decompression of basilar invagination via a standard anterior cervical approach. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(2):184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crockard HA, Pozo JL, Ransford AO, Stevens JM, Kendall BE, Essigman WK. Transoral decompression and posterior fusion for rheumatoid atlanto-axial subluxation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68(3):350–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gladi M, Iacoangeli M, Specchia N, Re M, Dobran M, Alvaro L, et al. Endoscopic transnasal odontoid resection to decompress the bulbo-medullary junction: a reliable anterior minimally invasive technique without posterior fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 1):S55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vitali M, Canevari FR, Cattalani A, Grasso V, Somma T, Barbanera A. Direct fascia lata reconstruction to reduce donor site morbidity in endoscopic endonasal extended surgery: a pilot study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;144:59–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zygmunt S, Saveland H, Brattstrom H, Ljunggren B, Larsson EM, Wollheim F. Reduction of rheumatoid periodontoid pannus following posterior occipito-cervical fusion visualised by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Neurosurg. 1988;2(3):315–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Almeida JR, Zanation AM, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Prevedello DM, Gardner PA, et al. Defining the nasopalatine line: the limit for endonasal surgery of the spine. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(2):239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crockard HA. The transoral approach to the base of the brain and upper cervical cord. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1985;67(5):321–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Menezes AH, Van Gilder JC, Graf CJ, McDonnell DE. Craniocervical abnormalities. A comprehensive surgical approach. J Neurosurg. 1980;53:444–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dlouhy BJ, Dahdaleh NS, Menezes AH. Evolution of transoral approaches, endoscopic endonasal approaches, and reduction strategies for treatment of craniovertebral junction pathology: a treatment algorithm update. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38(4):E8.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.FOCUS14837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Vitali
    • 1
  • Frank Rikki Canevari
    • 2
  • Andrea Cattalani
    • 1
    • 3
  • Teresa Somma
    • 4
  • Vincenzo Maria Grasso
    • 1
  • Andrea Barbanera
    • 1
  1. 1.Neurosurgical Unit, Surgical DepartmentAzienda Ospedaliera SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare ArrigoAlessandriaItaly
  2. 2.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyAzienda Ospedaliera SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare ArrigoAlessandriaItaly
  3. 3.Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric SciencesUniversità degli Studi di PaviaPaviaItaly
  4. 4.Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological SciencesUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations