Comparison of endoscope- versus microscope-assisted resection of deep-seated intracranial lesions using a minimally invasive port retractor system

Restricted access

OBJECT

Tubular brain retractors may improve access to deep-seated brain lesions while potentially reducing the risks of collateral neurological injury associated with standard microsurgical approaches. Here, microscope-assisted resection of lesions using tubular retractors is assessed to determine if it is superior to endoscope-assisted surgery due to the technological advancements associated with modern tubular ports and surgical microscopes.

METHODS

Following institutional approval of the tubular port, data obtained from the initial 20 patients to undergo transportal resection of deep-seated brain lesions were analyzed in this study. The pathological entities of the resected tissues included metastatic tumors (8 patients), glioma (7), meningioma (1), neurocytoma (1), radiation necrosis (1), primitive neuroectodermal tumor (1), and hemangioblastoma (1). Surgery incorporated endoscopic (5 patients) or microscopic (15) assistance. The locations included the basal ganglia (11 patients), cerebellum (4), frontal lobe (2), temporal lobe (2), and parietal lobe (1). Cases were reviewed for neurological outcomes, extent of resection (EOR), and complications. Technical data for the port, surgical microscope, and endoscope were analyzed.

RESULTS

EOR was considered total in 14 (70%), near total (> 95%) in 4 (20%), and subtotal (< 90%) in 2 (10%) of 20 patients. Incomplete resection was associated with the basal ganglia location (p < 0.05) and use of the endoscope (p < 0.002). Four of 5 (80%) endoscope-assisted cases were near-total (2) or subtotal (2) resection. Histopathological diagnosis, presenting neurological symptoms, and demographics were not associated with EOR. Complication rates were low and similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial experience with tubular retractors favors use of the microscope rather than the endoscope due to a wider and 3D field of view. Improved microscope optics and tubular retractor design allows for binocular vision with improved lighting for the resection of deep-seated brain lesions.

ABBREVIATIONSEOR = extent of resection; GTR = gross-total resection; NTR = near-total resection; STR = subtotal resection.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence J. Bradley Elder, 410 W. 10th Ave., Doan Hall, N1052, Columbus, OH 43210. email: brad.elder@osumc.edu.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online August 28, 2015; DOI: 10.3171/2015.1.JNS141113.Disclosure The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Albin MSBunegin LDujovny MBennett MHJannetta PJWisotzkey HM: Brain retraction pressure during intracranial procedures. Surg Forum 26:4995001975

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Andrews RJBringas JR: A review of brain retraction and recommendations for minimizing intraoperative brain injury. Neurosurgery 33:105210641993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Barkhoudarian GDel Carmen BecerraRomero ALaws ER: Evaluation of the 3-dimensional endoscope in transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 73:1 Suppl Operativeons74ons792013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bennett MHAlbin MSBunegin LDujovny MHellstrom HJannetta PJ: Evoked potential changes during brain retraction in dogs. Stroke 8:4874921977

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Cabbell KLRoss DA: Stereotactic microsurgical craniotomy for the treatment of third ventricular colloid cysts. Neurosurgery 38:3013071996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Carrau RLPrevedello DMde Lara DDurmus KOzer E: Combined transoral robotic surgery and endoscopic endonasal approach for the resection of extensive malignancies of the skull base. Head Neck 35:E351E3582013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Chotigavanichaya CKorwutthikulrangsri ESuratkarndawadee SRuangchainikom MWatthanaapisith TTanapipatsiri S: Minimally invasive lumbar disectomy with the tubular retractor system: 4–7 years follow-up. J Med Assoc Thai 95:Suppl 9S82S862012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Engh JALunsford LDAmin DVOchalski PGFernandez-Miranda JPrevedello DM: Stereotactically guided endoscopic port surgery for intraventricular tumor and colloid cyst resection. Neurosurgery 67:3 Suppl Operativeons198ons2052010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Feldman ZReichenthal EZachari ZShapira YArtru AA: Mannitol, intracranial pressure and vasogenic edema. Neurosurgery 36:123612371995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Franke JGreiner-Perth RBoehm HMahlfeld KGrasshoff HAllam Y: Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Spine J 18:99210002009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Herrera SRShin JHChan MKouloumberis PGoellner ESlavin KV: Use of transparent plastic tubular retractor in surgery for deep brain lesions: a case series. Surg Technol Int 19:47502010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Horwitz MJ: The Leyla retractor: use in acoustic neuroma and neurotologic surgery. Otolaryngology 86:ORL-934ORL-9351978

  • 13

    Jacewicz MBrint STanabe JPulsinelli WA: Continuous nimodipine treatment attenuates cortical infarction in rats subjected to 24 hours of focal cerebral ischemia. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 10:89961990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Kahilogullari GBeton SAl-Beyati ESKantarcioglu OBozkurt MKantarcioglu E: Olfactory functions after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: endoscopic versus microscopic approach. Laryngoscope 123:211221192013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kassam ABPrevedello DMCarrau RLSnyderman CHThomas AGardner P: Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors’ initial 800 patients. J Neurosurg 114:154415682011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kelly PJ: Future perspectives in stereotactic neurosurgery: stereotactic microsurgical removal of deep brain tumors. J Neurosurg Sci 33:1491541989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Kelly PJGoerss SJKall BA: The stereotaxic retractor in computer-assisted stereotaxic microsurgery. Technical note. J Neurosurg 69:3013061988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Kelly PJKall BAGoerss SJ: Computer-interactive stereotactic resection of deep-seated and centrally located intra-axial brain lesions. Appl Neurophysiol 50:1071131987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Kotwal SKawaguchi SLebl DHughes AHuang RSama A: Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcome at a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:1191252015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Leksell LLindquist CAdler JRLeksell DJernberg BSteiner L: A new fixation device for the Leksell stereotaxic system. Technical note. J Neurosurg 66:6266291987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Lo EHSteinberg GK: Effects of dextromethorphan on regional cerebral blood flow in focal cerebral ischemia. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 11:8038091991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    McLaughlin NEisenberg AACohan PChaloner CBKelly DF: Value of endoscopy for maximizing tumor removal in endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery. J Neurosurg 118:6136202013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    McLaughlin NPrevedello DMEngh JKelly DFKassam AB: Endoneurosurgical resection of intraventricular and intraparenchymal lesions using the port technique. World Neurosurg 79:2 SupplS18.e1S18.e82013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Meyer FBAnderson RESundt TM JrYaksh TL: Treatment of experimental focal cerebral ischemia with mannitol. Assessment by intracellular brain pH, cortical blood flow, and electroencephalography. J Neurosurg 66:1091151987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Moshel YALink MJKelly PJ: Stereotactic volumetric resection of thalamic pilocytic astrocytomas. Neurosurgery 61:66752007

  • 26

    Ochalski PGFernandez-Miranda JCPrevedello DMPollack IFEngh JA: Endoscopic port surgery for resection of lesions of the cerebellar peduncles: technical note. Neurosurgery 68:144414512011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Otsuki TJokura HYoshimoto T: Stereotactic guiding tube for open-system endoscopy: a new approach for the stereotactic endoscopic resection of intra-axial brain tumors. Neurosurgery 27:3263301990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Patil AA: Free-standing, stereotactic, microsurgical retraction technique in “key hole” intracranial procedures. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 108:1481531991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Popov VAnderson DG: Minimal invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Adv Orthop 2012:6453212012

  • 30

    Prevedello DMEbner FHde Lara DDitzel Filho LOtto BACarrau RL: Extracapsular dissection technique with the cotton swab for pituitary adenomas through an endoscopic endonasal approach — how I do it. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:162916322013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Raza SMRecinos PFAvendano JAdams HJallo GIQuinones-Hinojosa A: Minimally invasive trans-portal resection of deep intracranial lesions. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:5112011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Recinos PFRaza SMJallo GIRecinos VR: Use of a minimally invasive tubular retraction system for deep-seated tumors in pediatric patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr 7:5165212011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Takemura YInoue TMorishita TRhoton AL Jr: Comparison of microscopic and endoscopic approaches to the cerebellopontine angle. World Neurosurg 82:4274412014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Van Rompaey JBush CMcKinnon BSolares AC: Minimally invasive access to the posterior cranial fossa: an anatomical study comparing a retrosigmoidal endoscopic approach to a microscopic approach. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 74:162013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Yadav YRYadav SSherekar SParihar V: A new minimally invasive tubular brain retractor system for surgery of deep intracerebral hematoma. Neurol India 59:74772011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Zamorano LMartinez-Coll ADujovny M: Transposition of image-defined trajectories into arc-quadrant centered stereotactic systems. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 46:1091111989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 394 394 80
Full Text Views 570 464 7
PDF Downloads 348 253 6
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar