Loymak Thanapong, Belykh Evgenii, Abramov Irakliy, Tungsanga Somkanya, Sarris Christina E, Little Andrew S, Preul Mark C
Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2022 Jan 14;83(5):526-535. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1741067. eCollection 2022 Oct.
Endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs) for petrosectomies are evolving to reduce perioperative brain injuries and complications. Surgical terminology, techniques, landmarks, advantages, and limitations of these approaches remain ill defined. We quantitatively analyzed the anatomical relationships and differences between EEA exposures for medial, inferior, and inferomedial petrosectomies. This study presents anatomical dissection and quantitative analysis. Cadaveric heads were used for dissection. EEAs were performed using the medial petrosectomy (MP), the inferior petrosectomy (IP), and the inferomedial petrosectomy (IMP) techniques. Six cadaver heads (12 sides, total) were dissected; each technique was performed on four sides. Outcomes included the area of exposure, visible distances, angles of attack, and bone resection volume. The IMP technique provided a greater area of exposure ( < 0.01) and bone resection volume ( < 0.01) when compared with the MP and IP techniques. The IMP technique had a longer working length of the abducens nerve (cranial nerve [CN] VI) than the MP technique ( < 0.01). The IMP technique demonstrated higher angles of attack to specific neurovascular structures when compared with the MP (midpons [ = 0.04], anterior inferior cerebellar artery [ < 0.01], proximal part of the cisternal CN VI segment [ = 0.02]) and IP (flocculus [ = 0.02] and the proximal [ = 0.02] and distal parts [ = 0.02] of the CN VII/VIII complex) techniques. Each of these approaches offers varying degrees of access to the petroclival region, and the surgical approach should be appropriately tailored to the pathology. Overall, the IMP technique provides greater EEA surgical exposure to vital neurovascular structures than the MP and the IP techniques.
用于岩骨切除术的鼻内镜鼻内入路(EEAs)正在不断发展,以减少围手术期脑损伤和并发症。这些入路的手术术语、技术、标志、优点和局限性仍不明确。我们定量分析了内侧、下侧和下内侧岩骨切除术的EEA暴露之间的解剖关系和差异。
本研究进行了解剖和定量分析。
使用尸体头部进行解剖。采用内侧岩骨切除术(MP)、下侧岩骨切除术(IP)和下内侧岩骨切除术(IMP)技术进行EEA。
解剖了6个尸体头部(共12侧);每种技术在4侧进行。
结果包括暴露面积、可见距离、攻击角度和骨切除体积。
与MP和IP技术相比,IMP技术提供了更大的暴露面积(P<0.01)和骨切除体积(P<0.01)。IMP技术的展神经(颅神经[CN]VI)工作长度比MP技术长(P<0.01)。与MP(脑桥中部[P = 0.04]、小脑前下动脉[P<0.01]、脑池段CN VI近端[P = 0.02])和IP(绒球[P = 0.02]以及CN VII/VIII复合体近端[P = 0.02]和远端[P = 0.02])技术相比,IMP技术对特定神经血管结构的攻击角度更高。
这些入路中的每一种都能提供不同程度的进入岩斜区的途径,手术入路应根据病理情况进行适当调整。总体而言,与MP和IP技术相比,IMP技术为重要神经血管结构提供了更大的EEA手术暴露。