Balasingam Vijayabalan, Anderson Gregory J, Gross Neil D, Cheng Cheng-Mao, Noguchi Akio, Dogan Aclan, McMenomey Sean O, Delashaw Johnny B, Andersen Peter E
Department of Surgery, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Neurosurg. 2006 Aug;105(2):301-8. doi: 10.3171/jns.2006.105.2.301.
The authors conducted a cadaveric anatomical study to quantify and compare the area of surgical exposure and the freedom available for instrument manipulation provided by the following four surgical approaches to the extracranial periclival region: simple transoral (STO), transoral with a palate split (TOPS), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFO), and median labioglossomandibulotomy (MLM).
Twelve unembalmed cadaveric heads with normal mouth opening capacity were serially dissected. For each approach, quantitation of extracranial periclival exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation (known here as surgical freedom) was accomplished by stereotactic localization. To quantify the extent of extracranial clival exposure obtained, anatomical measurements of the extracranial clivus were performed on 17 dry skull bases. The values (means +/- standard deviations in mm2) for periclival exposure and surgical freedom, respectively, for the surgical approaches studied were as follows: STO = 492 +/- 229 and 3164 +/- 1900; TOPS = 743 +/- 319 and 3478 +/- 2363; LFO = 689 +/- 248 and 2760 +/- 1922; and MLM 1312 +/- 384 and 8074 +/- 6451. The extent of linear midline clival exposure and the percentage of linear midline clival exposure relative to the total linear midline exposure were as follows, respectively: STO = 0.6 +/- 4.9 mm and 7.8 +/- 11%; TOPS = 8.9 +/- 5.5 mm and 24.2 +/- 16.7%; LFO = 32.9 +/- 10.2 mm and 85.0 +/- 18.7%; and MLM = 2.1 +/- 4.4 mm and 6.7 +/- 11.1%.
The choice of approach and the resulting degree of complexity and associated morbidity depends on the location of the pathological entity. The authors found that the MLM approach, like the STO approach, provided good exposure of the craniocervical junction but limited exposure of the clivus. The TOPS approach, an approach attended by a lesser risk of morbidity, provided adequate exposure of the extracranial inferior clivus. Maximal exposure of the extracranial clivus proper was provided by the LFO approach.
作者进行了一项尸体解剖研究,以量化和比较以下四种手术入路至颅外斜坡周围区域时的手术暴露面积和器械操作的自由度:单纯经口入路(STO)、经口腭裂开入路(TOPS)、Le Fort I截骨术(LFO)和正中唇舌下颌骨切开术(MLM)。
对12具具有正常开口能力的未防腐尸体头部进行连续解剖。对于每种入路,通过立体定向定位来量化颅外斜坡周围的暴露情况和器械操作的自由度(在此称为手术自由度)。为了量化所获得的颅外斜坡暴露范围,在17个干燥颅骨基底上对颅外斜坡进行了解剖测量。所研究的手术入路的斜坡周围暴露和手术自由度的值(单位为mm2,均值±标准差)分别如下:STO = 492 ± 229和3164 ± 1900;TOPS = 743 ± 319和3478 ± 2363;LFO = 689 ± 248和2760 ± 1922;以及MLM 1312 ± 384和8074 ± 6451。线性中线斜坡暴露的范围以及线性中线斜坡暴露相对于总线性中线暴露的百分比分别如下:STO = 0.6 ± 4.9 mm和7.8 ± 11%;TOPS = 8.9 ± 5.5 mm和24.2 ± 16.7%;LFO = 32.9 ± 10.2 mm和85.0 ± 18.7%;以及MLM = 2.1 ± 4.4 mm和6.7 ± 11.1%。
入路的选择以及由此产生的复杂程度和相关发病率取决于病变实体的位置。作者发现,MLM入路与STO入路一样,能很好地暴露颅颈交界区,但对斜坡的暴露有限。TOPS入路的发病率风险较低,能提供足够的颅外下斜坡暴露。LFO入路能提供颅外斜坡本身的最大暴露。