Carmine Antonio Donofrio1,2, Lucia Riccio3, Omar N Pathmanaban4, Antonio Fioravanti5, Anthony J Caputy6, Pietro Mortini3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery and Gamma Knife Radiosurgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. carmine.donofrio@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Manchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Stott Lane, Manchester, M6 8HD, UK. carmine.donofrio@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Neurosurgery and Gamma Knife Radiosurgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Manchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Stott Lane, Manchester, M6 8HD, UK. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Cremona, Ospedale di Cremona, Cremona, Italy. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, George Washington Hospital, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although orbital surgery has always represented a challenge for neurosurgeons, keyhole and endoscopic techniques are gradually surging in popularity maximizing functional and esthetic outcomes. This quantitative anatomical study first compared the surgical operability achieved through three endoscopic approaches within the inferior orbit: the endoscopic sublabial transmaxillary (ESTMax), the endoscopic endonasal transethmoidal (EETEth), and the endoscope-assisted lateral orbitotomy (ELO). METHODS: Each of these approaches was performed bilaterally on five specimens. We described the ESTMax step-by-step, underlining its advantages and pitfalls in comparison with EETEth and ELO. Then, we assessed surgical measurements and operability in ESTMax, EETEth, and ELO. RESULTS: The ESTMax provided the most favorable operative window (278.9 ± 43.8 mm2; EETEth: 240.8 ± 21.5 mm2, p < 0.001; ELO: 263.1 ± 19.8 mm2, p = 0.006), the broadest surgical field area (415.9 ± 26.4 mm2; EETEth: 386.7 ± 30.1 mm2, p = 0.041; ELO: 305.2 ± 26.3 mm2, p < 0.001), surgical field depths significantly shorter than EETEth (p < 0.001) but similar to ELO, the widest surgical angles of attack (45°-65°; EETEth: 20°-30°, p < 0.001; ELO: 25°-50°, p < 0.001), and the greatest surgical mobility areas (EETEth: p < 0.001; ELO: p < 0.001). Furthermore, the ESTMax allowed multi-angled exposure and handy maneuverability around all the inferior intraorbital targets. Small anterior antrostomy, blunt intraorbital dissections, direct targets' approach, orbital floor reconstruction, and maxillary bone flap replacement may limit the ESTMax morbidity rates. CONCLUSIONS: The ESTMax is a minimally invasive "head-on" orbital approach that exploits endoscopic surgery advantages avoiding the cranio-orbital and trans-nasal approach limitations and possible complications. It represents a promising alternative to EETEth and ELO because of its optimal operability for resecting lesions extending into the entire inferior orbit.
OBJECTIVE: Although orbital surgery has always represented a challenge for neurosurgeons, keyhole and endoscopic techniques are gradually surging in popularity maximizing functional and esthetic outcomes. This quantitative anatomical study first compared the surgical operability achieved through three endoscopic approaches within the inferior orbit: the endoscopic sublabial transmaxillary (ESTMax), the endoscopic endonasal transethmoidal (EETEth), and the endoscope-assisted lateral orbitotomy (ELO). METHODS: Each of these approaches was performed bilaterally on five specimens. We described the ESTMax step-by-step, underlining its advantages and pitfalls in comparison with EETEth and ELO. Then, we assessed surgical measurements and operability in ESTMax, EETEth, and ELO. RESULTS: The ESTMax provided the most favorable operative window (278.9 ± 43.8 mm2; EETEth: 240.8 ± 21.5 mm2, p < 0.001; ELO: 263.1 ± 19.8 mm2, p = 0.006), the broadest surgical field area (415.9 ± 26.4 mm2; EETEth: 386.7 ± 30.1 mm2, p = 0.041; ELO: 305.2 ± 26.3 mm2, p < 0.001), surgical field depths significantly shorter than EETEth (p < 0.001) but similar to ELO, the widest surgical angles of attack (45°-65°; EETEth: 20°-30°, p < 0.001; ELO: 25°-50°, p < 0.001), and the greatest surgical mobility areas (EETEth: p < 0.001; ELO: p < 0.001). Furthermore, the ESTMax allowed multi-angled exposure and handy maneuverability around all the inferior intraorbital targets. Small anterior antrostomy, blunt intraorbital dissections, direct targets' approach, orbital floor reconstruction, and maxillary bone flap replacement may limit the ESTMax morbidity rates. CONCLUSIONS: The ESTMax is a minimally invasive "head-on" orbital approach that exploits endoscopic surgery advantages avoiding the cranio-orbital and trans-nasal approach limitations and possible complications. It represents a promising alternative to EETEth and ELO because of its optimal operability for resecting lesions extending into the entire inferior orbit.
Authors: Paolo Castelnuovo; Mario Turri-Zanoni; Paolo Battaglia; Davide Locatelli; Iacopo Dallan Journal: Neurosurg Clin N Am Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 2.509
Authors: Ali M Elhadi; Kaith K Almefty; George A C Mendes; M Yashar S Kalani; Peter Nakaji; Alexander Dru; Mark C Preul; Andrew S Little Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2014-05-02
Authors: Hussam Abou-Al-Shaar; Khaled M Krisht; Michael A Cohen; Abdullah M Abunimer; Jayson A Neil; Michael Karsy; Gmaan Alzhrani; William T Couldwell Journal: Front Surg Date: 2020-02-07