Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The study objective is to generalize the basic principles of the individual preoperative planning in surgery of extra- and intraaxial brain tumors of the frontal lobe and anterior cranial fossa via eyebrow supraorbital keyhole approach. Materials and methods. In 2014–2018, we treated 40 patients with different tumors (meningiomas, gliomas, metastasis) through an eyebrow supraorbital keyhole craniotomy (in F.I. Inozemtsev City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department). Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging with enhancement were performed to evaluate location and size of the tumor, relation to the approach-related anatomical structures (size and location of frontal sinus, pneumatization of the anterior clinoid process, depth of olfactory groove) and individual facial anatomy. Results. Gross total removal of the intraaxial tumors was achieved in 69 %, near-total removal in 31 %. The cranial base meningiomas were removed by Simpson II in 23 (96 %) patients, Simpson III in 1 (2.5 %) patient. A breach of frontal sinus was performed in 2 (5 %) patients. There were no cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, hemorrhage, morbidity and mortality. Conclusion. Keyhole surgery for patients with large intracranial tumors requires a thorough preoperative assessment of individual anatomical features, which is necessary to plan an optimal route, reduce the risk of injuries to other structures (not related to the surgical target), as well as the frequency of complications. These principles ensure high efficacy and safety of surgical treatment.
The study objective is to generalize the basic principles of the individual preoperative planning in surgery of extra- and intraaxial brain tumors of the frontal lobe and anterior cranial fossa via eyebrow supraorbital keyhole approach. Materials and methods. In 2014–2018, we treated 40 patients with different tumors (meningiomas, gliomas, metastasis) through an eyebrow supraorbital keyhole craniotomy (in F.I. Inozemtsev City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department). Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging with enhancement were performed to evaluate location and size of the tumor, relation to the approach-related anatomical structures (size and location of frontal sinus, pneumatization of the anterior clinoid process, depth of olfactory groove) and individual facial anatomy. Results. Gross total removal of the intraaxial tumors was achieved in 69 %, near-total removal in 31 %. The cranial base meningiomas were removed by Simpson II in 23 (96 %) patients, Simpson III in 1 (2.5 %) patient. A breach of frontal sinus was performed in 2 (5 %) patients. There were no cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, hemorrhage, morbidity and mortality. Conclusion. Keyhole surgery for patients with large intracranial tumors requires a thorough preoperative assessment of individual anatomical features, which is necessary to plan an optimal route, reduce the risk of injuries to other structures (not related to the surgical target), as well as the frequency of complications. These principles ensure high efficacy and safety of surgical treatment.
The study objective is to compare the outcomes of surgeries performed via the transciliary supraorbital approach and traditional lateral supraorbital approach in patients with suprasellar meningiomas. Material and methods. The experimental group included 17 patients (8 males and 9 females aged between 38 and 67 years (mean age 48.7 ± 5.9 years)) with meningotheliomatous meningiomas (size between 15 and 46 mm (mean size 24.5 ± 5.7 mm) that underwent surgery via the transciliary supraorbital approach. All surgeries were performed by one surgeon. The control group included 20 patients (10 males and 10 females) that underwent surgery via the lateral supraorbital approach. These surgeries were also performed by one surgeon. The 2 groups were matched for size and location of meningiomas. We compared the extent of surgery, frequency of complications, severity of cosmetic defects, and other parameters between the groups. Preoperative examination, microsurgical removal of the tumor, anesthesia, and postoperative management were the same in both groups. Results. We observed no differences in the extent of surgery, frequency of complaints, complications, and neurological status between participants in the experimental and control groups. There were no deaths in either group. Patients that underwent surgery via the transciliary supraorbital approach had lower blood loss than those who underwent surgery via the lateral supraorbital approach (145 ± 18 mL vs 186 ± 24 mL). The duration of surgery was also lower in the experimental group than in the control group (145 ± 24 min vs 167 ± 32 min). Cosmetic outcomes were evaluated using the Cosmetic Visual Analogue Scale. Participants in the experimental group had higher score (>90) than controls (2 patients reported scores of 70 and 80). Possible negative effects of the transciliary supraorbital approach include the risk of scarring in the eyebrow area, skin numbness in the frontal area, paralysis of the frontalis muscle, and the need for more accurate preoperative markings using neuronavigation. Conclusion. In general, the therapeutic effect of surgeries via the transciliary supraorbital and lateral supraorbital approaches do not differ. However, the use of the transciliary supraorbital approach allowed smaller incisions (in both skin and dura mater) and smaller trepanation holes (and as a result minimal displacement of brain structures during surgery). It also ensured lower blood loss and duration of surgery and improved the cosmetic effect. The decision on the surgical approach should be based on tumor characteristics with the consideration of patient’s opinion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.