Literature DB >> 25924605

Anatomical features of skull base and oral cavity: a pilot study to determine the accessibility of the sella by transoral robotic-assisted surgery.

Aymeric Amelot1, Stephanie Trunet, Vincent Degos, Olivier André, Aurore Dionnet, Philippe Cornu, Stéphane Hans, Dorian Chauvet.   

Abstract

The role of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in the skull base emerges and represents the natural progression toward miniinvasive resections in confined spaces. The accessibility of the sella via TORS has been recently described on fresh human cadavers. An anatomic study is mandatory to know if this approach would be feasible in the majority of patients regardless of their oral morphological features. From 30 skull base CT scans from patients who were asked to open their mouth as wide as they can, we measured specific dimensions of the oral cavity and the skull base, such as length of the palate, mouth opening and distance from the sella to the palate. All data were acquired on a sagittal midline plane and on a 25° rotation plane, which simulated the axis of the robotic instruments. Looking at the projection of the dental palatine line on the sella, we studied possible predictive factors of sellar accessibility and tried to bring objective data for surgical feasibility. We also proposed an angle α to study the working angle at the skull base. We observed that the maximal mouth opening was a good predictive factor of sellar accessibility by TORS (p < 0.05). The mouth aperture threshold value for a good sensitivity, over 80 %, was comparable to the mean value of mouth opening in our series, 38.9 and 39.4 mm respectively. Moreover, we showed a statistically significant increase of the working angle α at the skull base comparing the lateral access to the midline one (p < 0.05). This seemed to quantitatively demonstrate that the robotic arms placed at the labial commissure of the mouth can reach the sella. From these anatomical features and previous cadaveric dissections, we assume that TORS may be feasible on a majority of patients to remove pituitary adenomas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25924605     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-015-0635-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  24 in total

1.  Endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery: evolution of surgical technique and equipment in 150 operations.

Authors:  H D Jho; A Alfieri
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  2001-03

2.  Expanded endonasal approach: fully endoscopic, completely transnasal approach to the middle third of the clivus, petrous bone, middle cranial fossa, and infratemporal fossa.

Authors:  Amin B Kassam; Paul Gardner; Carl Snyderman; Arlan Mintz; Ricardo Carrau
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 3.  Robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary bypass surgery.

Authors:  Johannes Bonatti; Thomas Schachner; Nikolaos Bonaros; Eric J Lehr; David Zimrin; Bartley Griffith
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 4.  Robotic surgery: colon and rectum.

Authors:  Seong Kyu Baek; Joseph C Carmichael; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.360

5.  Analysis of pneumatization and neurovascular structures of the sphenoid sinus using cone-beam tomography (CBT).

Authors:  Christian Güldner; Sarah M Pistorius; Isabell Diogo; Siegfried Bien; Andreas Sesterhenn; Jochen A Werner
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 1.990

6.  Transoral robotic-assisted skull base surgery to approach the sella turcica: cadaveric study.

Authors:  Dorian Chauvet; Antoine Missistrano; Mikaël Hivelin; Alexandre Carpentier; Philippe Cornu; Stéphane Hans
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for base of tongue neoplasms.

Authors:  Bert W O'Malley; Gregory S Weinstein; Wendy Snyder; Neil G Hockstein
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 8.  Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Ari Abraham Hakimi; Marc Feder; Reza Ghavamian
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.510

9.  Robotic approaches to the posterior spine.

Authors:  Karthikeyan Ponnusamy; Samuel Chewning; Catherine Mohr
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Endoscopic endonasal approach for clival chordomas.

Authors:  Martina Stippler; Paul A Gardner; Carl H Snyderman; Ricardo L Carrau; Daniel M Prevedello; Amin B Kassam
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  1 in total

1.  Nasopharynx access by minimally invasive transoral robotic surgery: anatomical study.

Authors:  Amine Harichane; Dorian Chauvet; Stéphane Hans
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-03-16
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.