Xiaochun Zhao1, Leandro Borba Moreira1, Claudio Cavallo1, Evgenii Belykh2, Sirin Gandhi1, Mohamed A Labib1, Ali Tayebi Meybodi1, Celene B Mulholland1, Brandon D Liebelt1, Michaela Lee1, Peter Nakaji1, Mark C Preul3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Irkutsk State Medical University, Irkutsk, Russia. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Electronic address: Neuropub@barrowneuro.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The contralateral interhemispheric transprecuneus approach (CITP) and the supracerebellar transtentorial transcollateral sulcus approach (STTC) are 2 novel approaches to access the atrium of the lateral ventricle. We quantitatively compared the 2 approaches. METHODS: Both approaches were performed in 6 sides of fixed and color-injected cadaver heads. We predefined the 6 targets in the atrium for measurement and standardization of the approaches. Using a navigation system, we quantitatively measured the working distance, cortical transgression, angle of attack, area of exposure, and surgical freedom. RESULTS: The distances from the craniotomy edge to the posterior pole of the choroid plexus of the CITP (mean ± standard deviation, 67 ± 5.3 mm) and STTC (mean, 57 ± 4.0 mm) differed significantly (P < 0.01). Cortical transgression with the CITP (mean, 27 ± 2.8 mm) was significantly greater than that with the STTC (mean, 21 ± 6.7 mm; P = 0.03). The CITP showed a significantly wider rostrocaudal angle of attack than that with the STTC (P = 0.01). The STTC showed a significantly wider mediolateral angle (P < 0.01). No significant difference was found for surgical freedom of any target except for point E, for which the CITP was larger. The exposure area did not differ significantly between the 2 approaches (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches were feasible for accessing the atrium. The STTC provided a shorter working distance and wider mediolateral angle, CITP provided a wider rostrocaudal angle of attack and better exposure and maneuverability to the anterior and superior atrium. In contrast, the STTC was more favorable for the inferior and posterior regions.
OBJECTIVE: The contralateral interhemispheric transprecuneus approach (CITP) and the supracerebellar transtentorial transcollateral sulcus approach (STTC) are 2 novel approaches to access the atrium of the lateral ventricle. We quantitatively compared the 2 approaches. METHODS: Both approaches were performed in 6 sides of fixed and color-injected cadaver heads. We predefined the 6 targets in the atrium for measurement and standardization of the approaches. Using a navigation system, we quantitatively measured the working distance, cortical transgression, angle of attack, area of exposure, and surgical freedom. RESULTS: The distances from the craniotomy edge to the posterior pole of the choroid plexus of the CITP (mean ± standard deviation, 67 ± 5.3 mm) and STTC (mean, 57 ± 4.0 mm) differed significantly (P < 0.01). Cortical transgression with the CITP (mean, 27 ± 2.8 mm) was significantly greater than that with the STTC (mean, 21 ± 6.7 mm; P = 0.03). The CITP showed a significantly wider rostrocaudal angle of attack than that with the STTC (P = 0.01). The STTC showed a significantly wider mediolateral angle (P < 0.01). No significant difference was found for surgical freedom of any target except for point E, for which the CITP was larger. The exposure area did not differ significantly between the 2 approaches (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches were feasible for accessing the atrium. The STTC provided a shorter working distance and wider mediolateral angle, CITP provided a wider rostrocaudal angle of attack and better exposure and maneuverability to the anterior and superior atrium. In contrast, the STTC was more favorable for the inferior and posterior regions.
Authors: Thanapong Loymak; Evgenii Belykh; Irakliy Abramov; Somkanya Tungsanga; Christina E Sarris; Andrew S Little; Mark C Preul Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2022-01-14