Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, NO. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, China.
Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, NO. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, China.
Neurochirurgie. 2021 Sep;67(5):487-490. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2021.03.015. Epub 2021 Apr 15.
When the culprit vessel in hemifacial spasm (HFS) is hard to determine, this is a challenge in microvascular decompression (MVD) surgery. In such a situation, small arteries such as perforators to the brainstem might be suspected. But small arteries are omnipresent near the facial nerve root exit/entry zone (fREZ). How to decide whether a given small artery is responsible for HFS is unclear.
We report a case with a previously unreported form of neurovascular impingement, in which the culprit was found to be the recurrent perforating artery (RPA) from the anterior inferior cerebellar artery (AICA). An aberrant anatomic configuration of the RPA was found intraoperatively, which we thought was responsible for generating focal pressure on the facial nerve.
A 62-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of paroxysmal but increasingly frequent twitching in her right face. MRI showed tortuosity of the vertebral artery and apparently marked neurovascular impingement on the asymptomatic left side, while only the right AICA could be implicated as the possible culprit. Hemifacial spasm was diagnosed based on the typical clinical manifestation, and MVD was performed. The pre-meatal segment of the AICA was found not to be impinging the facial nerve at any susceptible portion near the fREZ: root exit point, attached segment, or root detachment point. The real culprit was in fact the RPA. This occult culprit vessel was tortuous, forming a coil-shaped twist which was interposed between the facial nerve and the intermediate nerve near the root detachment point. Focal pressure atrophy of the nerve was clearly observed at the compressing site. The patient achieved total spasm relief immediately after surgery, and remained spasm-free at 1-year follow-up, without any postoperative complications.
MVD is the only curative treatment for hemifacial spasm, but with a failure rate of around 10%. Mistaking the real culprit has been reported to be the most likely reason for surgical failure. Therefore, intraoperative identification of atypical occult forms of vascular compression is of importance to improve surgical outcome. In the present case, the RPA formed a coil-shaped twist, which inflicted focal vascular compression causing hemifacial spasm. We recommend careful inspection of the recurrent perforating artery during MVD for HFS, and decompressing any such neurovascular impingement.
当面肌痉挛(hemifacial spasm,HFS)的责任血管难以确定时,这对面神经微血管减压术(microvascular decompression,MVD)是一个挑战。在这种情况下,可能会怀疑责任血管是穿通支等小动脉。但小动脉在面神经根部出/入口区(facial nerve root exit/entry zone,fREZ)附近无处不在。如何确定给定的小动脉是否是 HFS 的责任血管尚不清楚。
我们报告了一例以前未报道过的神经血管压迫形式的病例,责任血管被发现是小脑前下动脉(anterior inferior cerebellar artery,AICA)的返动脉(recurrent perforating artery,RPA)。术中发现 RPA 的解剖结构异常,我们认为这是对面神经产生局灶性压力的原因。
一名 62 岁女性,右侧面部阵发性抽搐 1 年,且发作越来越频繁。MRI 显示椎动脉迂曲,左侧无症状,明显存在明显的神经血管压迫,但仅右侧 AICA 可能是责任血管。根据典型临床表现诊断为面肌痉挛,行 MVD 治疗。发现 AICA 的前内耳道段在 fREZ 附近的任何易感部位(神经根出孔、附着段或神经根分离点)都没有压迫面神经。真正的责任血管实际上是 RPA。这个隐匿的责任血管迂曲,形成一个线圈状扭曲,位于面神经和中间神经之间,靠近神经根分离点。在受压部位明显观察到神经的局灶性压迫性萎缩。术后患者立即完全缓解痉挛,随访 1 年无痉挛,无术后并发症。
MVD 是治疗面肌痉挛的唯一有效方法,但失败率约为 10%。手术失败最可能的原因是误认为真正的责任血管。因此,术中识别不典型隐匿性血管压迫形式对提高手术效果很重要。在本病例中,RPA 形成线圈状扭曲,对面神经造成局灶性血管压迫,导致面肌痉挛。我们建议在 MVD 治疗 HFS 时仔细检查返动脉,并对任何此类神经血管压迫进行减压。