Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Modified osteoplastic orbitozygomatic craniotomy in the pediatric population

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Child's Nervous System Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Object

Anterior and anterolateral skull base approaches offer the advantages of improved visualization and minimal brain retraction for lesions involving the orbital apex, parasellar regions, and anterior and middle fossa floors. These approaches are seldom used in the pediatric population due to the perceived increase in morbidity and surgical complexity. We report the application of the previously described modified osteoplastic orbitozygomatic (OZ) craniotomy to pediatric neurosurgical cases. This approach offers a number of advantages and is technically straightforward.

Materials and methods

The results from six pediatric cases are reported. Age ranged from 26 months to 15 years, with a follow-up period of 5 to 22 months. Pathology included craniopharyngioma (three), frontal epidural abscess–subdural empyema with intraorbital extension (one), hypothalamic hamartoma (one), and optic pathway glioma (one). No complications related to the surgical approach were noted. In all cases, good postoperative cosmesis was achieved with excellent realignment of the orbital rim. Temporalis muscle bulk was preserved and symmetric in all cases.

Conclusion

The modified osteoplastic OZ craniotomy can be safely and effectively applied to the pediatric population. Advantages include: (1) ease of use; (2) superior exposure and therefore less brain retraction; (3) an easily replaced one-piece bone flap which obviates the need for plating–suturing at the orbital rim; (4) a vascularized bone flap less susceptible to infection; and (5) maintenance of normal temporalis muscle anatomy for improved cosmesis and function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balasingam V, Noguchi A, McMenomey SO, Delashaw JB Jr (2005) Modified osteoplastic orbitozygomatic craniotomy: technical note. J Neurosurg 102:940–944

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzalez LF, Crawford NR, Horgan MA, Deshmukh P, Zabramski JM, Spetzler RF (2002) Working area and angle of attack in three cranial base approaches: pterional, orbitozygomatic, and maxillary extension of the orbitozygomatic approach. Neurosurgery 50:550–555 discussion 555–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hakuba A, Liu S, Nishimura S (1986) The orbitozygomatic infratemporal approach: a new surgical technique. Surg Neurol 26:271–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jane JA, Park TS, Pobereskin LH, Winn HR, Butler AB (1982) The supraorbital approach: technical note. Neurosurgery 11:537–542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McArthur LL (1912) An aseptic surgical access to the pituitary body and its neighborhood. JAMA 58:2009–2011

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oikawa S, Mizuno M, Muraoka S, Kobayashi S (1996) Retrograde dissection of the temporalis muscle preventing muscle atrophy for pterional craniotomy. technical note. J Neurosurg 84:297–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pellerin P, Lesoin F, Dhellemmes P, Donazzan M, Jomin M (1984) Usefulness of the orbitofrontomalar approach associated with bone reconstruction for frontotemporosphenoid meningiomas. Neurosurgery 15:715–718

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rasmussen S, Ohrstrom JK, Westergaard L, Kosteljanetz M (1990) Post-operative infections of osteoplastic compared with free bone flaps. Br J Neurosurg 4:493–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwartz MS, Anderson GJ, Horgan MA, Kellogg JX, McMenomey SO, Delashaw JB Jr (1999) Quantification of increased exposure resulting from orbital rim and orbitozygomatic osteotomy via the frontotemporal transsylvian approach. J Neurosurg 91:1020–1026

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sekhar LN, Kalia KK, Yonas H, Wright DC, Ching H (1994) Cranial base approaches to intracranial aneurysms in the subarachnoid space. Neurosurgery 35:472–481 discussion 481–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanriover N, Ulm AJ, Rhoton AL Jr, Kawashima M, Yoshioka N, Lewis SB (2006) One-piece versus two-piece orbitozygomatic craniotomy: quantitative and qualitative considerations. Neurosurgery 58:ONS229–ONS237 discussion ONS237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yasargil MG, Fox JL, Ray MW (1975) The operative approach to aneurysms of the anterior communicating artery. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 2:113–170

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yasargil MG, Reichman MV, Kubik S (1987) Preservation of the frontotemporal branch of the facial nerve using the interfascial temporalis flap for pterional craniotomy. Technical article. J Neurosurg 67:463–466

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Johnny B. Delashaw Jr., M.D. for allowing reproduction of figures from the original description of this technique [1].

Financial disclosure/disclaimer

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean M. Lew.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, M.L., Kaufman, B.A. & Lew, S.M. Modified osteoplastic orbitozygomatic craniotomy in the pediatric population. Childs Nerv Syst 24, 845–850 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-007-0575-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-007-0575-3

Keywords

Navigation