Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus

Author:

Balasingam Vijayabalan1,Anderson Gregory J.1,Gross Neil D.1,Cheng Cheng-Mao1,Noguchi Akio1,Dogan Aclan1,McMenomey Sean O.1,Delashaw Johnny B.1,Andersen Peter E.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Surgery, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Departments of Neurological Surgery and Otolaryngology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Neurological Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; and Department of Neurosurgery, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

Object The authors conducted a cadaveric anatomical study to quantify and compare the area of surgical exposure and the freedom available for instrument manipulation provided by the following four surgical approaches to the extracranial periclival region: simple transoral (STO), transoral with a palate split (TOPS), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFO), and median labioglossomandibulotomy (MLM). Methods Twelve unembalmed cadaveric heads with normal mouth opening capacity were serially dissected. For each approach, quantitation of extracranial periclival exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation (known here as surgical freedom) was accomplished by stereotactic localization. To quantify the extent of extracranial clival exposure obtained, anatomical measurements of the extracranial clivus were performed on 17 dry skull bases. The values (means ± standard deviations in mm2) for periclival exposure and surgical freedom, respectively, for the surgical approaches studied were as follows: STO = 492 ± 229 and 3164 ± 1900; TOPS = 743 ± 319 and 3478 ± 2363; LFO = 689 ± 248 and 2760 ± 1922; and MLM 1312 ± 384 and 8074 ± 6451. The extent of linear midline clival exposure and the percentage of linear midline clival exposure relative to the total linear midline exposure were as follows, respectively: STO = 0.6 ± 4.9 mm and 7.8 ± 11%; TOPS = 8.9 ± 5.5 mm and 24.2 ± 16.7%; LFO = 32.9 ± 10.2 mm and 85.0 ± 18.7%; and MLM = 2.1 ± 4.4 mm and 6.7 ± 11.1%. Conclusions The choice of approach and the resulting degree of complexity and associated morbidity depends on the location of the pathological entity. The authors found that the MLM approach, like the STO approach, provided good exposure of the craniocervical junction but limited exposure of the clivus. The TOPS approach, an approach attended by a lesser risk of morbidity, provided adequate exposure of the extracranial inferior clivus. Maximal exposure of the extracranial clivus proper was provided by the LFO approach.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

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