Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2021; 82(S 03): e184-e189
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712180
Original Article

Anatomic Assessment of the Limits of an Endoscopically Assisted Retrolabyrinthine Approach to the Internal Auditory Canal

Thomas J. Muelleman
1   Division of Neurootology, House Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Anne K. Maxwell
1   Division of Neurootology, House Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Kevin A. Peng
1   Division of Neurootology, House Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Derald E. Brackmann
1   Division of Neurootology, House Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Gregory P. Lekovic
2   Division of Neurosurgery, House Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Gautam U. Mehta 
2   Division of Neurosurgery, House Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by a research grant from the North American Skull Base Society. Additional research support was provided by Karl Storz, Endoscopy-America, Inc. through the provision of endoscopic surgical equipment. Finally, we thank the House Ear Institute for administrative support.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Data regarding the surgical advantages and anatomic constraints of a hearing-preserving endoscopic-assisted retrolabyrinthine approach to the IAC are scarce. This study aimed to define the minimum amount of retrosigmoid dural exposure necessary for endoscopic exposure of the IAC and the surgical freedom of motion afforded by this approach.

Methods Presigmoid retrolabyrinthine approaches were performed on fresh cadaveric heads. The IAC was exposed under endoscopic guidance. The retrosigmoid posterior fossa dura was decompressed until the fundus of the IAC was exposed. Surgical freedom of motion at the fundus was calculated after both retrolabyrinthine and translabyrinthine approaches.

Results The IAC was entirely exposed in nine specimens with a median length of 12 mm (range: 10–13 mm). Complete IAC exposure could be achieved with 1 cm of retrosigmoid dural exposure in eight of nine mastoids. For the retrolabyrinthine approach, the median anterior–posterior surgical freedom was 13 degrees (range: 6–23 degrees) compared with 46 degrees (range: 36–53 degrees) for the translabyrinthine approach (p = 0.014). For the retrolabyrinthine approach, the median superior–inferior surgical freedom was 40 degrees (range 33–46 degrees) compared with 47 degrees (range: 42–51 degrees) for the translabyrinthine approach (p = 0.022).

Conclusion Using endoscopic assistance, the retrolabyrinthine approach can expose the entire IAC. We recommend at least 1.5 cm of retrosigmoid posterior fossa dura exposure for this approach. Although this strategy provides significantly less instrument freedom of motion in both the horizontal and vertical axes than the translabyrinthine approach, it may be appropriate for carefully selected patients with intact hearing and small-to–medium sized tumors involving the IAC.

Keywords

endoscopic - internal auditory canal - retrolabyrinthine - vestibular schwannoma


Publication History

Received: 23 August 2019

Accepted: 19 March 2020

Article published online:
26 May 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 House JW, Hitselberger WE, McElveen J, Brackmann DE. Retrolabyrinthine section of the vestibular nerve. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1984; 92 (02) 212-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 McElveen Jr. JT, Shelton C, Hitselberger WE, Brackmann DE. Retrolabyrinthine vestibular neurectomy: a reevaluation. Laryngoscope 1988; 98 (05) 502-506
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hitselberger WE, Pulec JL. Trigeminal nerve (posterior root) retrolabyrinthine selective section. Operative procedure for intractable pain. Arch Otolaryngol 1972; 96 (05) 412-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Darrouzet V, Guerin J, Aouad N, Dutkiewicz J, Blayney AW, Bebear J-P. The widened retrolabyrinthe approach: a new concept in acoustic neuroma surgery. J Neurosurg 1997; 86 (05) 812-821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bento RF, De Brito RV, Sanchez TG, Miniti A. The transmastoid retrolabyrinthine approach in vestibular schwannoma surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 127 (05) 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Muelleman T, Shew M, Alvi S. et al. Endoscopically assisted drilling, exposure of the fundus through a presigmoid retrolabyrinthine approach: a cadaveric feasibility study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 158 (01) 155-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Iacoangeli M, Salvinelli F, Di Rienzo A. et al. Microsurgical endoscopy-assisted presigmoid retrolabyrinthine approach as a minimally invasive surgical option for the treatment of medium to large vestibular schwannomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013; 155 (04) 663-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tan HY, Yang J, Wang ZY. et al. Simultaneous supervision by microscope of endoscope-assisted microsurgery via presigmoid retrolabyrinthine approach: A pilot study. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2018; 135 (5S): S103-S106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pulec JL, Hitselberger WE. Trigeminal neuralgia: retrolabyrinthine selective posterior root section. Laryngoscope 1977; 87 (11) 1861-1869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Silverstein H, Norrell H. Retrolabyrinthine surgery: a direct approach to the cerebellopontine angle. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1980; 88 (04) 462-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Silverstein H, Norrell H, Rosenberg S. The resurrection of vestibular neurectomy: a 10-year experience with 115 cases. J Neurosurg 1990; 72 (04) 533-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Molony TB, Kwartler JA, House WF, Hitselberger WE. Extended middle fossa and retrolabyrinthine approaches in acoustic neuroma surgery: case reports. Am J Otol 1992; 13 (04) 360-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kouhi A, Firouzifar M, Dabiri S. Extended retro/infralabyrinthine approach to cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal, a radio-anatomic study. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40 (06) e646-e652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Darrouzet V, Franco-Vidal V, Hilton M. et al. Surgery of cerebellopontine angle epidermoid cysts: role of the widened retrolabyrinthine approach combined with endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 131 (01) 120-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chen BS, Roberts DS, Lekovic GP. Vestibular neurectomy for intractable vertigo: case series and evaluation of role of endoscopic assistance in retrolabyrinthine craniotomy. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2019; 80 (04) 357-363
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shew M, Kavookjian H, Dahlstrom K. et al. Incidence and risk factors for sigmoid venous thrombosis following CPA tumor resection. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (05) e376-e380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abou-Al-Shaar H, Gozal YM, Alzhrani G, Karsy M, Shelton C, Couldwell WT. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vestibular schwannoma surgery: a call for evidence-based management guidelines. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 45 (01) E4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Keiper Jr. GL, Sherman JD, Tomsick TA, Tew Jr JM. Dural sinus thrombosis and pseudotumor cerebri: unexpected complications of suboccipital craniotomy and translabyrinthine craniectomy. J Neurosurg 1999; 91 (02) 192-197
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Zuurbier SM, van den Berg R, Troost D, Majoie CB, Stam J, Coutinho JM. Hydrocephalus in cerebral venous thrombosis. J Neurol 2015; 262 (04) 931-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Apra C, Kotbi O, Turc G. et al. Presentation and management of lateral sinus thrombosis following posterior fossa surgery. J Neurosurg 2017; 126 (01) 8-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar