OBJECTIVE: To quantify the exposure to the fourth ventricle obtained with the telovelar and transvermian approaches. METHODS: The telovelar, with and without C1 posterior arch removal, and transvermian approaches were performed on six cadaveric heads. The area of surgical exposure was calculated from triangles formed by defined anatomic points. A robotic microscope was used to determine the "angle of approach" for the same points. RESULTS: The maximal allowable vertical angle of attack to the obex of the fourth ventricle was significantly greater with the telovelar approach than with the transvermian approach (P < 0.002), but there was no difference at the rostral fourth ventricle. The maximal allowable horizontal angle of attack at the level of the obex, Luschka, and rostral fourth ventricle was significantly greater with the telovelar than with the transvermian approach (P < 0.001). Removal of the C1 posterior arch with the telovelar approach significantly increased the vertical angle of approach to the obex (P < 0.001) and rostral aspect of the fourth ventricle (P = 0.005) compared with the telovelar alone. The telovelar approach with C1 arch removal offered a larger working area than the transvermian approach (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Except for the vertical angle to the rostral aspect of the fourth ventricle, the telovelar approach provides greater angle of exposure in all planes than the transvermian approach. Removal of the C1 posterior arch obviates this sole advantage of the transvermian approach. The telovelar approach offers a corridor through noneloquent arachnoid planes and a safe and capacious working environment.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the exposure to the fourth ventricle obtained with the telovelar and transvermian approaches. METHODS: The telovelar, with and without C1 posterior arch removal, and transvermian approaches were performed on six cadaveric heads. The area of surgical exposure was calculated from triangles formed by defined anatomic points. A robotic microscope was used to determine the "angle of approach" for the same points. RESULTS: The maximal allowable vertical angle of attack to the obex of the fourth ventricle was significantly greater with the telovelar approach than with the transvermian approach (P < 0.002), but there was no difference at the rostral fourth ventricle. The maximal allowable horizontal angle of attack at the level of the obex, Luschka, and rostral fourth ventricle was significantly greater with the telovelar than with the transvermian approach (P < 0.001). Removal of the C1 posterior arch with the telovelar approach significantly increased the vertical angle of approach to the obex (P < 0.001) and rostral aspect of the fourth ventricle (P = 0.005) compared with the telovelar alone. The telovelar approach with C1 arch removal offered a larger working area than the transvermian approach (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Except for the vertical angle to the rostral aspect of the fourth ventricle, the telovelar approach provides greater angle of exposure in all planes than the transvermian approach. Removal of the C1 posterior arch obviates this sole advantage of the transvermian approach. The telovelar approach offers a corridor through noneloquent arachnoid planes and a safe and capacious working environment.
Authors: F Doglietto; I Radovanovic; M Ravichandiran; A Agur; G Zadeh; J Qiu; W Kucharczyk; E Fernandez; M M Fontanella; F Gentili Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Thora Gudrunardottir; Angela T Morgan; Andrew L Lux; David A Walker; Karin S Walsh; Elizabeth M Wells; Jeffrey H Wisoff; Marianne Juhler; Jeremy D Schmahmann; Robert F Keating; Coriene Catsman-Berrevoets Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Ethan A Winkler; Harjus Birk; Michael Safaee; John K Yue; John F Burke; Jennifer A Viner; Melike Pekmezci; Arie Perry; Manish K Aghi; Mitchel S Berger; Michael W McDermott Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 4.130