Predictors of the Size and Surgical Freedom of the Trans-Cribriform and Trans-Clival Corridors, a Radiographic Analysis

Abstract

Introduction The transcribriform and transclival corridors are endoscopic endonasal approaches used to treat pathologies of the skull base. We present a predictive model that uses the clival length and ethmoidal width to predict the size and surgical freedom (SF) of these corridors.

Methods Adult facial computed tomography scans were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included patients <18 years of age or radiographic evidence of trauma, neoplasm, or congenital deformities of the skull base. The images were analyzed using OsiriX MD (Bernex, Switzerland). Patients' demographics, clival length, ethmoidal width, surface area, and others were collected. Linear regression was used to create prediction models for the size and SF of the transclival and transcribriform corridors.

Results A total of 103 patients were included with an average age of 44.9 years and 47% males. Females had a smaller clival surface area (8 vs. 9.2 cm², p = 0.001). For transclival corridor, clival length correlated positively with SF in the sagittal plane (rho = 0.44, p < 0.05) and negatively with SF in the coronal plane (rho = − 0.2, p < 0.05). For transcribriform corridor, ethmoidal width correlated positively with SF in the coronal plane (rho = 0.74, p < 0.05), and negatively with SF in the sagittal plane (rho = − 0.2, p < 0.05).

Conclusion A significant variability of the bony anatomy of the anterior and central skull base was found. The use of clival length and ethmoidal width as part of preoperative surgical planning might help to overcome the anatomical variability which could affect the adequacy of surgical corridors.

Keywords

skull base - approaches - transcribriform - endoscopic - transclival

Publication History

Received: 16 June 2020

Accepted: 01 November 2020

Article published online:
14 January 2021

• References

• 1 Bossi Todeschini A, Montaser AS, Hardesty DA, Carrau RL, Prevedello DM. The limits of the endoscopic endonasal transclival approach for posterior fossa tumors. J Neurosurg Sci 2018; 62 (03) 322-331
• 2 Doglietto F, Ferrari M, Mattavelli D. et al. Transnasal endoscopic and lateral approaches to the clivus: a quantitative anatomic study. World Neurosurg 2018; 113: e659-e671
• 3 Kutlay M, Durmaz A, Özer İ. et al. Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the ventral skull base lesions. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018; 167: 129-140
• 4 Revuelta Barbero JM, Noiphithak R, Yanez-Siller JC. et al. Expanded endoscopic endonasal approach to the inframeatal area: anatomic nuances with surgical implications. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e1234-e1244
• 5 Simal-Julián JA, Miranda-Lloret P, Botella-Asunción C, Kassam A. Full endoscopic endonasal expanded approach to the petroclival region: optimizing the carotid-clival window. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156 (08) 1627-1629
• 6 Schwartz TH, Morgenstern PF, Anand VK. Lessons learned in the evolution of endoscopic skull base surgery. J Neurosurg 2019; 130 (02) 337-346
• 7 Hamid O, El Fiky L, Hassan O, Kotb A, El Fiky S. Anatomic variations of the sphenoid sinus and their impact on trans-sphenoid pituitary surgery. Skull Base 2008; 18 (01) 9-15
• 8 Idowu OE, Balogun BO, Okoli CA. Dimensions, septation, and pattern of pneumatization of the sphenoidal sinus. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2009; 68 (04) 228-232
• 9 Xiao SX, Ma YH, Zhan RY, Wen L. Sella turcica anatomy by three-dimensional computed tomography for an endonasal transsphenoidal approach to pituitary adenoma. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2011; 54 (04) 162-166
• 10 Zada G, Agarwalla PK, Mukundan Jr. S, Dunn I, Golby AJ, Laws Jr ER. The neurosurgical anatomy of the sphenoid sinus and sellar floor in endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (05) 1319-1330
• 11 Elhadi AM, Hardesty DA, Zaidi HA. et al. Evaluation of surgical freedom for microscopic and endoscopic transsphenoidal approaches to the sella. Neurosurgery 2015; 11 (Suppl. 02) 69-78 , discussion 78–79
• 12 Wilson DA, Williamson RW, Preul MC, Little AS. Comparative analysis of surgical freedom and angle of attack of two minimal-access endoscopic transmaxillary approaches to the anterolateral skull base. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (3,4): e487-e493