Combined Petrosal Intertentorial Approach: A Cadaveric Study of Comparison With the Standard Combined Petrosectomy

Author:

Giammattei Lorenzo1,Peters David2,Cadas Hugues34,Fava Arianna5,Schranz Sami3,George Mercy6,Sabatasso Sara34,Messerer Mahmoud14,Starnoni Daniele14,Daniel Roy T.14

Affiliation:

1. Department of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland;

2. Department of Neurosurgery, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA;

3. Unité Facultaire d'Anatomie et de Morphologie (UFAM), University Center of Legal Medicine Lausanne-Geneva (CURML), Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland;

4. Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

5. Department of Neurosurgery, IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy;

6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland;

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The combined petrosal intertentorial approach (CPIA) has been proposed as an alternative to standard combined petrosal approach (SCPA). CPIA has been designed to maintain integrity of the temporal dura with a view to reduce temporal lobe morbidity and venous complications. This study has been designed to perform a quantitative comparison between these approaches. METHODS: Five human specimens were used for this study. CPIA was performed on one side and SCPA on the opposite side. The area of exposure (petroclival and brainstem), surgical freedom, and angles of attack to a predefined target were measured and compared. RESULTS: SCPA provided a significantly larger petroclival area of exposure (6.81 ± 0.60 cm2) over the CPIA (5.59 ± 0.59 cm2), P = .012. The area of brainstem exposed with SCPA was greater than with CPIA (7.17 ± 0.84 vs 5.63 ± 0.72, P = .014). The area of surgical freedom was greater in SCPA rather than in CPIA (8.59 ± 0.55 and 7.13 ± 0.96 cm2, respectively, P = .019). There was no significative difference between CPIA and SCPA in the vertical angles of attack for the Meckel cave, Dorello canal, and root entry zone of cranial nerve VII. Conversely, the horizontal angles of attack permitted by the CPIA were significantly smaller for the Meckel cave (52.36° ± 5.01° vs 64.4° ± 5.3°, P = .006) and root entry zone of cranial nerve VII (30.7° ± 4.4° vs 40.1° ± 6.2°, P = .025). CONCLUSION: CPIA is associated with a reduction in terms of the area of surgical freedom (22%), skull base (18%), brainstem exposure (17%), and horizontal angles of attack (18%-23%) when compared with SCPA. This loss in terms of exposure is counterbalanced by the advantage of keeping the temporal lobe covered by an extra layer of meningeal tissue, thus possibly reducing the risk of temporal lobe injury and venous infarction. These results need to be validated with adequate clinical experience.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3