Subtemporal Retrolabyrinthine (Posterior Petrosal) versus Endoscopic Endonasal Approach to the Petroclival Region: An Anatomical and Computed Tomography Study

Eric Mason; Jason Van Rompaey; C. Arturo Solares; Ramon Figueroa; Daniel Prevedello

doi:10.1055/s-0035-1566123

Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, Table of Contents

J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2016; 77(03): 231-237
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1566123

Original Article

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Subtemporal Retrolabyrinthine (Posterior Petrosal) versus Endoscopic Endonasal Approach to the Petroclival Region: An Anatomical and Computed Tomography Study

Eric Mason

¹Department of Otolaryngology, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia, United States

²Center for Cranial Base Surgery, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia, United States

,

Jason Van Rompaey

³Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States

,

C. Arturo Solares

¹Department of Otolaryngology, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia, United States

²Center for Cranial Base Surgery, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia, United States

,

Ramon Figueroa

⁴Department of Radiology, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia, United States

,

Daniel Prevedello

⁵Department of Neurosurgery, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background The petroclival region seats many neoplasms. Traditional surgical corridors to the region can result in unacceptable patient morbidity. The combined subtemporal retrolabyrinthine transpetrosal (posterior petrosal) approach provides adequate exposure with hearing preservation; however, the facial nerve and labyrinth are put at risk. Approaching the petroclival region with an endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) could minimize morbidity.

Objective To provide an anatomical and computed tomography (CT) comparison between the posterior petrosal approach and EEA to the petroclival region.

Methods The petroclival region was approached transclivally with EEA. Different aspects of dissection were compared with the posterior petrosal approach. The two approaches were also studied using CT analysis.

Results A successful corridor medial to the internal auditory canal (IAC) was achieved with EEA. Wide exposure was achieved with no external skin incisions, although significant sinonasal resection was required. The posterior petrosal was comparable in terms of exposure medially; however, the dissection involved more bone removal, greater skill, and a constricting effect upon deeper dissection. Importantly, access lateral to the IAC was obtained, whereas EEA could not reach this area.

Conclusion An EEA to the petroclival region is feasible. This approach can be considered in lesions medial to the IAC.

Keywords

cranial base - endonasal - endoscopic - petroclival region - posterior petrosal - skull base surgery - combined subtemporal retrolabyrinthine transpetrosal

Full Text

References

References
1 Springborg JB, Poulsgaard L, Thomsen J. Nonvestibular schwannoma tumors in the cerebellopontine angle: a structured approach and management guidelines. Skull Base 2008; 18 (4) 217-227
2 Gil Z, Fliss DM. Quality of life in patients with skull base tumors: current status and future challenges. Skull Base 2010; 20 (1) 11-18
3 d'Avella E, Angileri F, de Notaris M , et al. Extended endoscopic endonasal transclival approach to the ventrolateral brainstem and related cisternal spaces: anatomical study. Neurosurg Rev 2014; 37 (2) 253-260 ; discussion 260
4 Abolfotoh M, Dunn IF, Al-Mefty O. Transmastoid retrosigmoid approach to the cerebellopontine angle: surgical technique. Neurosurgery 2013; 73 (1, Suppl Operative): ons16-ons23 ; discussion ons23
5 Bambakidis NC, Kakarla UK, Kim LJ , et al. Evolution of surgical approaches in the treatment of petroclival meningiomas: a retrospective review. Neurosurgery 2007; 61 (5) (Suppl. 02) 202-209 ; discussion 209–211
6 Diluna ML, Bulsara KR. Surgery for petroclival meningiomas: a comprehensive review of outcomes in the skull base surgery era. Skull Base 2010; 20 (5) 337-342
7 Verillaud B, Bresson D, Sauvaget E , et al. Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery. . Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2012; 129 (4) 190-196
8 Kassam AB, Prevedello DM, Carrau RL , et al. Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors' initial 800 patients. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (6) 1544-1568
9 Van Rompaey J, Suruliraj A, Carrau R, Panizza B, Solares CA. Meckel's cave access: anatomic study comparing the endoscopic transantral and endonasal approaches. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 271 (4) 787-794
10 Greenfield JP, Anand VK, Kacker A , et al. Endoscopic endonasal transethmoidal transcribriform transfovea ethmoidalis approach to the anterior cranial fossa and skull base. Neurosurgery 2010; 66 (5) 883-892 ; discussion 892
11 Prevedello DM, Ditzel Filho LF, Solari D, Carrau RL, Kassam AB. Expanded endonasal approaches to middle cranial fossa and posterior fossa tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2010; 21 (4) 621-635 , vi
12 Van Rompaey J, Bush C, Khabbaz E, Vender J, Panizza B, Solares CA. What is the best route to the Meckel cave? Anatomical comparison between the endoscopic endonasal approach and a lateral approach. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2013; 74 (6) 331-336
13 Lee JT, Kingdom TT, Smith TL, Setzen M, Brown S, Batra PS. Practice patterns in endoscopic skull base surgery: survey of the American Rhinologic Society. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014; 4 (2) 124-131
14 Sanan A, Abdel Aziz KM, Janjua RM, van Loveren HR, Keller JT. Colored silicone injection for use in neurosurgical dissections: anatomic technical note. Neurosurgery 1999; 45 (5) 1267-1271 ; discussion 1271–1274
15 al-Mefty O, Borba LA. Skull base chordomas: a management challenge. J Neurosurg 1997; 86 (2) 182-189
16 Mendenhall WM, Friedman WA, Amdur RJ, Foote KD. Management of benign skull base meningiomas: a review. Skull Base 2004; 14 (1) 53-60 ; discussion 61
17 Chanson P, Salenave S. Diagnosis and treatment of pituitary adenomas. Minerva Endocrinol 2004; 29 (4) 241-275
18 Fisch U, Pillsbury HC. Infratemporal fossa approach to lesions in the temporal bone and base of the skull. Arch Otolaryngol 1979; 105 (2) 99-107
19 House WF. Transtemporal bone microsurgical removal of acoustic neuromas. Evolution of transtemporal bone removal of acoustic tumors. Arch Otolaryngol 1964; 80: 731-741
20 Manolidis S, Jackson CG, Von Doersten PG, Pappas D, Glasscock ME. Lateral skull base surgery: the otology group experience. Skull Base Surg 1997; 7 (3) 129-137
21 Javed T, Sekhar LN. Surgical management of clival meningiomas. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1991; 53: 171-182
22 Russell SM, Roland Jr JT, Golfinos JG. Retrolabyrinthine craniectomy: the unsung hero of skull base surgery. Skull Base 2004; 14 (1) 63-71 ; discussion 71
23 Zanoletti E, Martini A, Emanuelli E, Mazzoni A. Lateral approaches to the skull base. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2012; 32 (5) 281-287
24 Wu CY, Lan Q. Quantification of the presigmoid transpetrosal keyhole approach to petroclival region. Chin Med J (Engl) 2008; 121 (8) 740-744
25 Chen LH, Zhang HT, Chen L, Liu LX, Xu RX. Minimally invasive resection of brainstem cavernous malformations: surgical approaches and clinical experiences with 38 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014; 116: 72-79
26 Iacoangeli M, Di Rienzo A, di Somma SG , et al. Improving the endoscopic endonasal transclival approach: the important of a precise layer by layer reconstruction. Br J Neurosurg 2014; 28 (2) 241-246
27 Fortes FS, Carrau RL, Snyderman CH , et al. Transpterygoid transposition of a temporoparietal fascia flap: a new method for skull base reconstruction after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (6) 970-976
28 Blount A, Riley K, Cure J, Woodworth BA. Cerebrospinal fluid volume replacement following large endoscopic anterior cranial base resection. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2012; 2 (3) 217-221
29 Kerr EE, Prevedello DM, Jamshidi A, Ditzel Filho LF, Otto BA, Carrau RL. Immediate complications associated with high-flow cerebrospinal fluid egress during endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37 (4) E3
30 Kassam AB, Prevedello DM, Carrau RL , et al. Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors' initial 800 patients. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (6) 1544-1568
31 Kassam AB, Thomas A, Carrau RL , et al. Endoscopic reconstruction of the cranial base using a pedicled nasoseptal flap. Neurosurgery 2008; 63 (1) (Suppl. 01) ONS44-ONS52 ; discussion ONS52–ONS53
32 Ditzel Filho LF, Prevedello DM, Dolci RL , et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach for removal of petroclival chondrosarcomas. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2015; 26 (3) 453-462
33 Mesquita Filho PM, Ditzel Filho LF, Prevedello DM , et al. Endoscopic endonasal surgical management of chondrosarcomas with cerebellopontine angle extension. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37 (4) E13
34 Zanation AM, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Gardner PA, Prevedello DM, Kassam AB. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for petrous apex lesions. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (1) 19-25
35 Frassanito P, Massimi L, Rigante M , et al. Recurrent and self-remitting sixth cranial nerve palsy: pathophysiological insight from skull base chondrosarcoma. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2013; 12 (6) 633-636
36 Mason E, Gurrola II J, Reyes C, Brown JJ, Figueroa R, Solares CA. Analysis of the petrous portion of the internal carotid artery: landmarks for an endoscopic endonasal approach. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (9) 1988-1994