Horgan M A, Anderson G J, Kellogg J X, Schwartz M S, Spektor S, McMenomey S O, Delashaw J B
Department of Neurosurgery, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, USA.
J Neurosurg. 2000 Jul;93(1):108-12. doi: 10.3171/jns.2000.93.1.0108.
The petrosal approach to the petroclival region has been used by a variety of authors in various ways and the terminology has become quite confusing. A systematic assessment of the benefits and limitations of each approach is also lacking. The authors classify their approach to the middle and upper clivus, review the applications for each, and test their hypotheses on a cadaver model by using frameless stereotactic guidance.
The petrosal approach to the upper and middle clivus is divided into four increasingly morbidity-producing steps: retrolabyrinthine, transcrusal (partial labyrinthectomy), transotic, and transcochlear approaches. Four latex-injected cadaveric heads (eight sides) underwent dissection in which frameless stereotactic guidance was used. An area of exposure 10 cm superficial to a central target (working area) was calculated. The area and length of clival exposure with each subsequent dissection was also calculated. The retrolabyrinthine approach spares hearing and facial function but provides for only a small window of upper clival exposure. The view afforded by what we have called the transcrusal approach provides for up to four times this exposure. The transotic and transcochlear procedures, although producing more morbidity, add little in terms of a larger clival window. However, with each step, the surgical freedom for manipulation of instruments increases.
The petrosal approach to the upper and middle clivus is useful but should be used judiciously, because levels of morbidity can be high. The retrolabyrinthine approach has limited utility. For tumors without bone invasion, the transcrusal approach provides a much more versatile exposure with an excellent chance of hearing and facial nerve preservation. The transotic approach provides for greater versatility in treating lesions but clival exposure is not greatly enhanced. Transcochlear exposure adds little in terms of intradural exposure and should be reserved for cases in which access to the petrous carotid artery is necessary.
不同作者以多种方式采用岩骨入路处理岩斜区,导致术语相当混乱。目前也缺乏对每种入路的益处和局限性的系统评估。作者对其处理中、上斜坡的入路进行分类,回顾每种入路的应用情况,并在尸体模型上使用无框架立体定向引导来验证他们的假设。
处理上、中斜坡的岩骨入路分为四个致伤性逐渐增加的步骤:迷路后入路、经迷路(部分迷路切除术)入路、经耳入路和经耳蜗入路。对四个注入乳胶的尸体头部(八个侧面)进行解剖,术中使用无框架立体定向引导。计算距中央靶点(工作区域)10 cm浅表处的暴露面积。还计算每次后续解剖时斜坡的暴露面积和长度。迷路后入路可保留听力和面部功能,但对上斜坡的暴露窗口较小。我们所称的经迷路入路所提供的视野可达此暴露面积的四倍。经耳和经耳蜗手术虽然致伤性更大,但在扩大斜坡暴露窗口方面作用不大。然而,每一步骤中,器械操作的手术自由度都有所增加。
处理上、中斜坡的岩骨入路是有用的,但应谨慎使用,因为致伤程度可能较高。迷路后入路的效用有限。对于无骨质侵犯的肿瘤,经迷路入路能提供更广泛的暴露,且保留听力和面神经的机会很大。经耳入路在治疗病变时具有更大的灵活性,但斜坡暴露并未显著增加。经耳蜗暴露在硬膜内暴露方面作用不大,应仅用于需要暴露岩骨段颈动脉的病例。