Karampouga Maria, Alattar Ali A, Gross Bradley A, Al-Bayati Alhamza R, Choby Garret, Wang Eric W, Snyderman Carl H, Gardner Paul A, Zenonos Georgios A
Departments of1Neurological Surgery.
2Neurology, and.
J Neurosurg. 2025 Aug 29:1-13. doi: 10.3171/2025.4.JNS242716.
The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides a ventral surgical corridor, which can be advantageous in the management of carefully selected cerebral aneurysms. The literature lacks large series to better delineate the indications and limitations of this technique. The aim of this study was to elucidate the technique's safety, indications, advantages, and limitations, as well as its evolution over time.
The clinical records of all patients with intracranial aneurysms treated via EEA at the authors' institution, from the unveiling of the technique in March 2005 to February 2025, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient-specific treatment indications, surgical results, and technical parameters were examined.
The study cohort consisted of 40 aneurysms in 34 patients. Six patients had 2 aneurysms clipped during the same endonasal procedure, while 3 others had a sellar tumor excised concurrently. Seven patients initially presented with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 4 had pseudoaneurysms. Anatomically, 29 aneurysms were situated in the paraclinoid or cavernous sinus region, 10 were in the posterior circulation, and 1 giant aneurysm involved the petrous and cavernous internal carotid artery. Surgical treatment was only considered if endovascular therapy was not thought to be appropriate by experienced endovascular specialists. EEA was chosen if it was perceived to be safer than an open approach in terms of obtaining proximal and distal control, reducing manipulation of cranial nerves or the brain, or for the treatment of concomitant sellar pathology. Four patients underwent EEA for mass effect, 2 after postcoiling recanalization, and 3 because of antiplatelet contraindication/intolerance. Postoperative complications included 8 patients experiencing CSF leaks, 3 meningitis, 2 clip exposure, 3 lacunar infarcts (2 causing mild disability), and 4 new cranial nerve palsies that either improved or resolved. There were no parenchymal contusions, venous infarcts, postoperative seizures, optic neuropathies, lower cranial nerve palsies, or procedure-related mortalities. In the latter series of 14 cases since 2019, complications were mainly CSF leaks, with no long-term effects. During an average follow-up of 62.6 months, 1 patient required retreatment with a flow diverter.
The ventral surgical corridor afforded by EEA is a valuable option for the surgical treatment of carefully selected paraclinoid internal carotid artery and posterior circulation aneurysms arising medial to the cranial nerves, particularly when endovascular options are restricted. EEA may result in decreased morbidity related to cranial nerve deficits and parenchymal injury compared with lateral approaches. However, CSF leaks remain the main limitation, especially after subarachnoid hemorrhage.
鼻内镜经鼻入路(EEA)提供了一个腹侧手术通道,这在精心挑选的脑动脉瘤治疗中可能具有优势。目前文献中缺乏大型系列研究来更好地描述该技术的适应证和局限性。本研究的目的是阐明该技术的安全性、适应证、优势、局限性以及其随时间的演变。
回顾性分析了2005年3月该技术开展至2025年2月在作者所在机构接受EEA治疗的所有颅内动脉瘤患者的临床记录。检查了患者特定的治疗适应证、手术结果和技术参数。
研究队列包括34例患者的40个动脉瘤。6例患者在同一次经鼻手术中夹闭了2个动脉瘤,另外3例同时切除了鞍区肿瘤。7例患者最初表现为蛛网膜下腔出血,4例有假性动脉瘤。从解剖学角度看,29个动脉瘤位于床突旁或海绵窦区域,10个位于后循环,1个巨大动脉瘤累及岩骨段和海绵窦段颈内动脉。仅在经验丰富的血管内专家认为血管内治疗不合适时才考虑手术治疗。如果认为在获得近端和远端控制、减少对颅神经或脑的操作方面比开放手术更安全,或者用于治疗伴发的鞍区病变,则选择EEA。4例患者因占位效应接受EEA治疗,2例在弹簧圈栓塞后再通,3例因抗血小板禁忌/不耐受接受治疗。术后并发症包括8例脑脊液漏、3例脑膜炎、2例夹子暴露、3例腔隙性梗死(2例导致轻度残疾)以及4例新发颅神经麻痹,这些麻痹均有所改善或消失。没有实质挫伤、静脉梗死、术后癫痫发作、视神经病变、低位颅神经麻痹或与手术相关的死亡。在2019年以来的后一组14例病例中,并发症主要是脑脊液漏,无长期影响。在平均62.6个月的随访期间,1例患者需要使用血流导向装置进行再次治疗。
EEA提供的腹侧手术通道是治疗精心挑选的位于颅神经内侧的床突旁颈内动脉和后循环动脉瘤的一种有价值的选择,特别是在血管内治疗选择受限的情况下。与外侧入路相比,EEA可能会降低与颅神经功能缺损和实质损伤相关的发病率。然而,脑脊液漏仍然是主要限制,尤其是在蛛网膜下腔出血后。