Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Control of complications in the midfrontobasal approach

  • Technical Notes
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Many surgical techniques are employed for access to midline lesions of the anterior and middle fossa. A convenient one is the midfrontobasal approach. For various indications this surgical procedure was performed in 105 patients. Its benefits are outlined and a method for dealing with the two main drawbacks, postoperative loss of the sense of smell and the presumed risk of infection related to the inevitable opening of the frontal sinus, are described. In 83% of the cases the authors were able to anatomically retain the olfactory nerves, with preservation of the sense of smell in at least 65% of them. The frontal sinus was opened in 76% of the cases. The incidence of infection in the simple and quick integral reconstruction appeared 1%, equal to the rate of infection in the classical reduction of the frontal sinus by a periosteal flap.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Mefty O (1989) Surgical anatomy of the juxtasellar area. In: Surgery of the cranial base. Kluwer, Boston, pp 21–30

    Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Mefty O (1989) Complications of juxtasellar surgery. In: Surgery of the cranial base. Kluwer, Boston, pp 119–126

    Google Scholar 

  3. Donald PJ (1995) Anatomy and histology of the frontal sinus. In: Donald PJ, Gluckman JL, Rice DH (eds) The sinuses. Raven, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fearnside MR, Grant JMF (1972) Acute necrotizing encephalitis complicating bifrontal craniotomy and pituitary curettage. J Neurosurg 36: 499–502

    Google Scholar 

  5. Malis LI (1985) Surgical resection of tumors of the skull base. In: Wilkins RH, Rengachary SS (eds) Neurosurgery. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 1011–1021

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mann W,et al (1989) The state of the frontal sinus after craniotomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 100: 101–103

    Google Scholar 

  7. Patterson Jr RH (1985) Subfrontal approach to the pituitary gland. In: Wilkins RH, Rengachary SS (eds) Neurosurgery. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 902–904

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pool JL (1961) Aneurysms of the anterior communicating artery, bifrontal craniotomy and the routine use of temporary clips. J Neurosurg 18: 98–112

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pool JL (1972) Bifrontal craniotomy for anterior communicating artery aneurysms. J Neurosurg 36: 212–220

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schramm Jr VL, Maroon JC (1979) Sinus complications of frontal craniotomy. Laryngoscope 89: 1436–1445

    Google Scholar 

  11. Seeger W (1980) Microsurgery of the brain. Springer, Wien New York, pp 80–81

    Google Scholar 

  12. Suzuki J,et al (1981) Preservation of the olfactory tract in bifrontal craniotomy for ACoA aneurysms, and the functional prognosis. J Neurosurg 54: 342–345

    Google Scholar 

  13. Suzuki J,et al (1986) Bifrontal interhemispheric approach to aneurysms of the anterior communicating artery. J Neurosurg 64: 183–190

    Google Scholar 

  14. Van Ek B,et al (1992) Clinical, bacteriological and cost-reducing effects of antibiotic prophylaxis in craniotomy cases. NTVG 136: 16–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Dijk, J.M.C., Thomeer, R.T.W.M. Control of complications in the midfrontobasal approach. Acta neurochir 139, 355–358 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01808833

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01808833

Keywords

Navigation