Di Somma Alberto, Andaluz Norberto, Gogela Steven L, Cavallo Luigi Maria, Keller Jeffrey T, Prats-Galino Alberto, Cappabianca Paolo
Division of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Comprehensive Stroke Center at UC Neuroscience Institute, Mayfield Clinic, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2017 May;101:227-235. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.117. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
Various surgical routes have been used to decompress the intracanalicular optic nerve. Historically, a transcranial corridor was used, but more recently, ventral approaches (endonasal and/or transorbital) have been proposed, individually or in combination. The present study aims to detail and quantify the amount of bony optic canal removal that may be achieved via transcranial, transorbital, and endonasal pathways. In addition, the surgical freedom of each approach was analyzed.
In 10 cadaveric specimens (20 canals), optic canals were decompressed via pterional, endoscopic endonasal, and endoscopic superior eyelid transorbital corridors. The surgical freedom and circumferential optic canal decompression afforded by each approach was quantitatively analyzed. Statistical comparison was carried using a nonpaired Student t test.
An open pterional transcranial approach allowed the greatest area of surgical freedom (transcranial, 109.4 ± 33.6 cm; transorbital, 37.2 ± 4.9 cm; endonasal homolateral, 10.9 ± 5.2 cm; and endonasal contralateral, 11.1 ± 5.6 cm) with widest optic canal decompression compared with the other 2 ventral routes (transcranial, 245.2; transorbital, 177.9; endonasal, 144.6). These differences reached, in many cases, statistical significance for the transcranial approach.
This anatomic contribution provides a comprehensive evaluation of surgical access to the optic canal via 3 distinct, but complementary, approaches: transcranial, transorbital, and endonasal. Our results show that, as expected, a transcranial approach achieved the widest degree of circumferential optic canal decompression and the greatest surgical freedom for manipulation of surgical instruments. Further surgical experience is necessary to determine the proper surgical indication for the transorbital approach to this disease.
已采用多种手术路径对视神经管进行减压。过去使用经颅入路,但最近有人提出经腹侧入路(鼻内和/或经眶),可单独使用或联合使用。本研究旨在详细描述并量化经颅、经眶和鼻内路径可实现的视神经管骨质切除量。此外,还分析了每种入路的手术操作空间。
在10具尸体标本(20个神经管)中,通过翼点入路、鼻内镜下鼻内入路和内镜上睑经眶入路对视神经管进行减压。对每种入路的手术操作空间和视神经管圆周减压情况进行定量分析。采用非配对学生t检验进行统计学比较。
开放翼点经颅入路的手术操作空间最大(经颅,109.4±33.6平方厘米;经眶,37.2±4.9平方厘米;鼻内同侧,10.9±5.2平方厘米;鼻内对侧,11.1±5.6平方厘米),与其他两种经腹侧入路相比,视神经管减压范围最广(经颅,245.2;经眶,177.9;鼻内,144.6)。在许多情况下,经颅入路的这些差异具有统计学意义。
本解剖学研究通过三种不同但互补的入路:经颅、经眶和鼻内,对视神经管的手术入路进行了全面评估。我们的结果表明,正如预期的那样,经颅入路实现了最广泛的视神经管圆周减压,并且在手术器械操作方面具有最大的手术操作空间。对于这种疾病的经眶入路,需要进一步的手术经验来确定合适的手术适应症。