Advertisement

9 Principles of Minimally Invasive Keyhole Surgery

  • Varun R. KshettryEmail author
  • Tyler J. Kenning
  • James J. Evans
  • Christopher J. Farrell
Chapter

Abstract

The primary principle of keyhole cranial surgery is to maximize surgical efficiency by minimizing approach-related disruption while maintaining optimal ability to safely perform the operation. Keyhole cranial approaches include the supraorbital, mini-pterional, keyhole subtemporal, retrosigmoid, pineal, transventricular, and transcortical approaches. Keyhole approaches require careful preoperative planning to determine the optimal surgical trajectory with careful evaluation of normal and pathological anatomy. The endoscope can be an invaluable tool in keyhole approaches to increase illumination along the surgical corridor and look around structures that cannot be mobilized. In this chapter, we discuss the principles of keyhole cranial surgery and highlight nuances regarding individual keyhole approaches.

Keywords

Keyhole Minimally invasive Endoscopic-assisted Supraorbital Mini-pterional 

References

  1. 1.
    Perneczky A, Fries G. Endoscope-assisted brain surgery: part 1 – evolution, basic concept, and current technique. Neurosurgery. 1998;42(2):219–24; discussion 224-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reisch R, Stadie A, Kockro RA, Hopf N. The keyhole concept in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2013;79(2 Suppl):S17.e9-13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng C-M, Noguchi A, Dogan A, Anderson GJ, Hsu FPK, McMenomey SO, et al. Quantitative verification of the keyhole concept: a comparison of area of exposure in the parasellar region via supraorbital keyhole, frontotemporal pterional, and supraorbital approaches. J Neurosurg. 2013;118(2):264–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdel Aziz KM, Bhatia S, Tantawy MH, Sekula R, Keller JT, Froelich S, et al. Minimally invasive transpalpebral “eyelid” approach to the anterior cranial base. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(2 Suppl Operative):ons195–206; discussion 206-207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yeremeyeva E, Salma A, Chow A, Ammirati M. Microscopic and endoscopic anterior communicating artery complex anatomy as seen through keyhole approaches. J Clin Neurosci Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas. 2012;19(10):1422–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dayoub H, Schueler WB, Shakir H, Kimmell KT, Sincoff EH. The relationship between the zygomatic arch and the floor of the middle cranial fossa: a radiographic study. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(6 Suppl Operative):363–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ercan S, Scerrati A, Wu P, Zhang J, Ammirati M. Is less always better? Keyhole and standard subtemporal approaches: evaluation of temporal lobe retraction and surgical volume with and without zygomatic osteotomy in a cadaveric model. J Neurosurg. 2016;2016:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly PJ. Future perspectives in stereotactic neurosurgery: stereotactic microsurgical removal of deep brain tumors. J Neurosurg Sci. 1989;33(1):149–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bander ED, Jones SH, Kovanlikaya I, Schwartz TH. Utility of tubular retractors to minimize surgical brain injury in the removal of deep intraparenchymal lesions: a quantitative analysis of FLAIR hyperintensity and apparent diffusion coefficient maps. J Neurosurg. 2016;124(4):1053–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Varun R. Kshettry
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tyler J. Kenning
    • 2
  • James J. Evans
    • 3
  • Christopher J. Farrell
    • 3
  1. 1.Skull Base, Pituitary and Cerebrovascular Surgery, Department of NeurosurgeryCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Pituitary and Cranial Base Surgery, Department of NeurosurgeryAlbany Medical CenterAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Cranial Base and Pituitary Surgery, Department of NeurosurgeryThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations