Tag: Microsurgical anatomy

Posted on

The Dorello canal: historical development, controversies in microsurgical anatomy, and clinical implications

Dorello's canal

Neurosurg Focus 34 (3):E4, 2013

Interest in studying the anatomy of the abducent nerve arose from early clinical experience with abducent palsy seen in middle ear infection. Primo Dorello, an Italian anatomist working in Rome in the early 1900s, studied the anatomy of the petroclival region to formulate his own explanation of this pathological entity. His work led to his being credited with the discovery of the canal that bears his name, although this structure had been described 50 years previously by Wenzel Leopold Gruber. Renewed interest in the anatomy of this region arose due to advances in surgical approaches to tumors of the petroclival region and the need to explain the abducent palsies seen in trauma, intracranial hypotension, and aneurysms. The advent of the surgical microscope has allowed more detailed anatomical studies, and numerous articles have been published in the last 2 decades. The current article highlights the historical development of the study of the Dorello canal. A review of the anatomical studies of this structure is provided, followed by a brief overview of clinical considerations.

Posted on

The V2 segment of the vertebral artery: anatomical considerations and surgical implications

J Neurosurg Spine 15:610–619, 2011. DOI: 10.3171/2011.7.SPINE1132
Iatrogenic injury of the V2 segment of the vertebral artery (VA) is a rare but serious complication and can be catastrophic. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship of the V2 segment of the VA to the surrounding anatomical structures and to highlight the potential site and mechanisms of injury that can occur during common neurosurgical procedures involving the subaxial cervical spine.
Methods. Ten adult cadaveric specimens (20 sides) were included in this study. Quantitative anatomical measurements between selected landmarks and the VA were obtained. In addition, lateral mass screws were placed bilaterally, from C-3 to C-7, reproducing either the Magerl technique or a modified technique. The safety angle, defined as the axial deviation from the screw trajectory needed to injure the VA, and the distance from the entry point to the VA were measured at each level for both techniques.
Results. The VA coursed closer to the midline at C3–4 and C4–5 (mean distance [SD] 14.9 ± 1.1 mm) than at C2–3 or C5–6. Within the intertransverse space it coursed closer to the uncinate processes of the vertebral bodies (1.8 ± 1.1 mm) than to the anterior tubercle of the transverse processes (3.4 ± 1.6 mm). The distance between the VA and the uncinate process was less at C3–6 (1.3 ± 0.7 mm) than at C2–3 (3.3 ± 0.8 mm). The VA coursed on average at a distance of 11.9 ± 1.7 mm from the anterior and 4.2 ± 2.6 mm from the posterior aspect of the intervertebral disc space. Lateral mass screw angles were 25° lateral and 39.1° cranial for the Magerl technique, and 36.6° lateral and 46.1° cranial for the modified technique. The safety angle was greater and screw length longer when using this modified technique.
Conclusions. The relation of the V2 segment of the VA to anterior procedures and lateral mass instrumentation at the subaxial cervical spine was reviewed in this study. A detailed anatomical knowledge of the V2 segment of the VA combined with careful preoperative imaging is mandatory for safe cervical spine surgery.

Posted on

Extensions of the Sphenoid Sinus: A New Classification

Neurosurgery. 66(4):797-816, April 2010. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000367619.24800.B1

The transsphenoidal approach has been extended in recent years from tumors of the sellar region to lesions involving other areas bordering the sphenoid sinus including the cavernous sinus, Meckel’s cave, middle cranial fossa, planum sphenoidal, suprasellar region, and clivus. The goal of this study was to examine various pneumatized extensions of the sphenoid sinus that may facilitate extended approaches directed through the sinus.

METHODS: The sphenoid sinus and its surrounding structures were examined in 18 cadaver heads, and the results were correlated with the findings from 100 computed tomography images of the sinus. The sellar type of the sphenoid sinus in which the pneumatization extended beyond the anterior sellar wall was further classified according to the various extensions of the sinus.

RESULTS: The sellar type of the sphenoid sinus was classified into the following 6 basic types based on the direction of pneumatization: sphenoid body, lateral, clival, lesser wing, anterior, and combined. The recesses and prominences, formed by pneumatization of the sinus, act as “windows” opening from the sinus in different areas of the cranial base and may facilitate minimally invasive access to lesions in the corresponding areas.

CONCLUSION: The variations in the extensions of pneumatization of the sphenoid sinus may facilitate entry into areas bordering the sphenoid sinus and play a role in the selection of a surgical approach to lesions bordering the sinus.

Posted on

Comparison of Tonsillar Retraction and Resection in the Telovelar Approach

Neurosurgery 66[ONS Suppl 1]:ons30-ons40, 2010 DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000348558.35921.4E

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the telovelar approach with tonsillar manipulation for approaching the recesses of the fourth ventricle.

METHODS: A telovelar approach was performed in 8 injected cadaveric heads. Areas of exposure were measured for the superolateral and lateral recesses. Horizontal angles were evaluated by targeting the cerebral aqueduct and medial margin of the lateral recess. Quantitative comparisons were made between the telovelar dissections and various tonsillar manipulations.

RESULTS: Tonsillar retraction provided a comparable exposure of the superolateral recess with tonsillar resection (26.4 ± 17.6 vs 25.2 ± 12.5 mm2, respectively; P = .825). Tonsillar resection significantly increased exposure of the lateral recess compared with tonsillar retraction (31.1 ± 13.3 vs 20.2 ± 11.5 mm2, respectively; P = .002). Compared with tonsillar retraction, the horizontal angle to the lateral recess increased after either contralateral tonsillar retraction (22.7 ± 4.8 vs 36.7 ± 6.5 degrees) or tonsillar resection (22.7 ± 4.8 vs 31.5 ± 7.6 degrees; all adjusted P < .01). The horizontal angle to the cerebral aqueduct increased significantly with tonsillar resection compared with tonsillar retraction (17.6 ± 2.3 vs 13.2 ± 2.8 degrees; P < .001)

CONCLUSION: Compared with tonsillar retraction, tonsillar resection provides a wider corridor to, and a larger area of exposure of, the cerebral aqueduct and lateral recess. Contralateral tonsillar retraction improves access to the lateral recess by widening the surgical view from the contralateral side.

Proudly powered by WordPress