The quiet revolution: retractorless surgery for complex vascular and skull base lesions

J Neurosurg 116:291–300, 2012. DOI: 10.3171/2011.8.JNS101896

Smaller operative exposures, endoscopic approaches, and minimally invasive neurosurgery have emerged as a dominant trend in the modern era. In keeping with this evolution, the authors have recently eliminated the use of fixed retractors, instead employing dynamic retraction, with the use of handheld instruments. In the present study, the authors report the results of applying this strategy to challenging vascular and skull base lesions.

Methods. This 6-month study prospectively analyzed the use of retractorless surgery in a consecutive series of 223 patients with intracranial vascular or skull base lesions undergoing craniotomy. A single surgeon performed all operations.

Results. The microsurgical approaches (in descending order of frequency) included an orbitozygomatic craniotomy (77 patients [35%]), frontal (36 patients [16%]), retrosigmoid (27 patients [12%]), interhemispheric (16 patients [7%]), and lateral supracerebellar (15 patients [7%]). The most common lesions were aneurysms (83 lesions overall [37%]), 18 of which required a bypass. Of 159 vascular lesions, there were also 46 cavernous malformations (29%). Meningiomas were the most common skull base tumors (37 cases [58%]). Of the 223 patients, 7 cases of various vascular and skull base lesions required fixed retraction. Therefore, 97% of the cases were successfully treated without a self-retaining retractor system.

Conclusions. Fixed retraction can be supplanted by dynamic retraction with surgical instruments, limiting the risk of retractor-induced tissue edema and injury. This quiet revolution has precipitated a major change in surgical techniques. Extensive dissection of arachnoidal planes, careful placement of the handheld suction device, patient positioning that enhances gravity retraction, the refinement of microsurgical instrumentation, and appropriate selection of the operative corridor all serve to obviate the need for fixed retraction in most intracranial procedures. Retractorless neurosurgery is an achievable goal, even when complex lesions of the vasculature and skull base are being treated.

Results of a Prospective Randomized Study Comparing a Novel Retractor With a Caspar Retractor in Anterior Cervical Surgery

Neurosurgery 69[ONS Suppl 2]:ons156–ons160, 2011 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318219565f

Retraction injury might explain the soft tissue complications seen after anterior cervical surgery. A novel retractor system (Seex retractor system [SRS]) that uses a principle of bone fixation with rotation has been shown to reduce retraction pressure in a cadaveric model of anterior cervical decompression and fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the conventional Cloward-style retractor (CRS) with the SRS in a prospective randomized clinical trial.

METHODS: After ethics and study registration (ACTRN 12608000430336), eligible patients were randomized to either the CRS or SRS before 1- or 2-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion. The pressure beneath the medial retractor blade was recorded with a thin pressure transducer strip. Postoperative sore throat, dysphagia, and dysphonia were assessed after 1, 7, and 28 days.

RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were randomized. There were no serious complications. Complication rates were low with a trend favoring SRS that was not statistically different. Average retraction pressure with SRS was 1.9 mm Hg and with CRS was 5.6 mm Hg (P , .001 on F test; P = .002 on 2-tailed t test). Mean average peak retraction pressure with the SRS was 3.4 mm Hg and with the CRS was 20 mmHg (P , .001 on F test; P = .005 on 2-tailed t test).

CONCLUSION: The new retractor is safe, and statistically similar complication rates were observed with the 2 systems. The SRS generated significantly less retraction pressure compared with the CRS. This difference can be explained by the different principles governing the function of these retractors. Bone fixation gives stability and rotation reduces tissue pressure, both desirable in a retractor.