Browse

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Belykh, Evgenii x
  • By Author: Preul, Mark C. x
  • By Author: Cavallo, Claudio x
Clear All
Free access

Mohamed A. Labib, Evgenii Belykh, Claudio Cavallo, Xiaochun Zhao, Daniel M. Prevedello, Ricardo L. Carrau, Andrew S. Little, Mauro A. T. Ferreira, Mark C. Preul, A. Samy Youssef, and Peter Nakaji

OBJECTIVE

The ventral jugular foramen and the infrapetrous region are difficult to access through conventional lateral and posterolateral approaches. Endoscopic endonasal approaches to this region are obstructed by the eustachian tube (ET). This study presents a novel strategy for mobilizing the ET while preserving its integrity. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons with previous ET management paradigms are also presented.

METHODS

Ten dry skulls were analyzed. Four ET management strategies were sequentially performed on a total of 6 sides of cadaveric head specimens. Four measurement groups were generated: in group A, the ET was intact and not mobilized; in group B, the ET was mobilized inferolaterally; in group C, the ET underwent anterolateral mobilization; and in group D, the ET was resected. ET range of mobilization, surgical exposure area, and surgical freedom were measured and compared among the groups.

RESULTS

Wide exposure of the infrapetrous region and jugular foramen was achieved by removing the pterygoid process, unroofing the cartilaginous ET up to the level of the posterior aspect of the foramen ovale, and detaching the ET from the skull base and soft palate. Anterolateral mobilization of the ET facilitated significantly more retraction (a 126% increase) of the ET than inferolateral mobilization (mean ± SD: 20.8 ± 11.2 mm vs 9.2 ± 3.6 mm [p = 0.02]). Compared with group A, groups C and D had enhanced surgical exposure (142.5% [1176.9 ± 935.7 mm2] and 155.9% [1242.0 ± 1096.2 mm2], respectively, vs 485.4 ± 377.6 mm2 for group A [both p = 0.02]). Furthermore, group C had a significantly larger surgical exposure area than group B (p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was found between the area of exposure obtained by ET removal and anterolateral mobilization. Anterolateral mobilization of the ET resulted in a 39.5% increase in surgical freedom toward the exocranial jugular foramen compared with that obtained through inferolateral mobilization of the ET (67.2° ± 20.5° vs 48.1° ± 6.7° [p = 0.047]) and a 65.4% increase compared with that afforded by an intact ET position (67.2° ± 20.5° vs 40.6° ± 14.3° [p = 0.03]).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterolateral mobilization of the ET provides excellent access to the ventral jugular foramen and infrapetrous region. The surgical exposure obtained is superior to that achieved with other ET management strategies and is comparable to that obtained by ET resection.

Restricted access

Qing Sun, Xiaochun Zhao, Sirin Gandhi, Ali Tayebi Meybodi, Evgenii Belykh, Daniel Valli, Claudio Cavallo, Leandro Borba Moreira, Peter Nakaji, Michael T. Lawton, and Mark C. Preul

OBJECTIVE

The cisternal pulvinar is a challenging location for neurosurgery. Four approaches for reaching the pulvinar without cortical transgression are the ipsilateral supracerebellar infratentorial (iSCIT), contralateral supracerebellar infratentorial (cSCIT), ipsilateral occipital transtentorial (iOCTT), and contralateral occipital transtentorial/falcine (cOCTF) approaches. This study quantitatively compared these approaches in terms of surgical exposure and maneuverability.

METHODS

Each of the 4 approaches was performed in 4 cadaveric heads (8 specimens in total). A 6-sided anatomical polygonal region was configured over the cisternal pulvinar, defined by 6 reachable anatomical points in different vectors. Multiple polygons were subsequently formed to calculate the areas of exposure. The surgical freedom of each approach was calculated as the maximum allowable working area at the proximal end of a probe, with the distal end fixed at the posterior pole of the pulvinar. Areas of exposure, surgical freedom, and the working distance (surgical depth) of all approaches were compared.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found among the 4 different approaches with regard to the surgical depth, surgical freedom, or medial exposure area of the pulvinar. In the pairwise comparison, the cSCIT approach provided a significantly larger lateral exposure (39 ± 9.8 mm2) than iSCIT (19 ± 10.3 mm2, p < 0.01), iOCTT (19 ± 8.2 mm2, p < 0.01), and cOCTF (28 ± 7.3 mm2, p = 0.02) approaches. The total exposure area with a cSCIT approach (75 ± 23.1 mm2) was significantly larger than with iOCTT (43 ± 16.4 mm2, p < 0.01) and iSCIT (40 ± 20.2 mm2, p = 0.01) approaches (pairwise, p ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The cSCIT approach is preferable among the 4 compared approaches, demonstrating better exposure to the cisternal pulvinar than ipsilateral approaches and a larger lateral exposure than the cOCTF approach. Both contralateral approaches described (cSCIT and cOCTF) provided enhanced lateral exposure to the pulvinar, while the cOCTF provided a larger exposure to the lateral portion of the pulvinar than the iOCTT. Medial exposure and maneuverability did not differ among the approaches. A short tentorium may negatively impact an ipsilateral approach because the cingulate isthmus and parahippocampal gyrus tend to protrude, in which case they can obstruct access to the cisternal pulvinar ipsilaterally.