Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus

Vijayabalan Balasingam, Gregory Anderson, Neil D. Gross, Cheng Mao Cheng, Akio Noguchi, Aclan Dogan, Sean O. McMenomey, Johnny B. Delashaw, Peter Andersen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Object. The authors conducted a cadaveric anatomical study to quantify and compare the area of surgical exposure and the freedom available for instrument manipulation provided by the following four surgical approaches to the extracranial periclival region: simple transoral (STO), transoral with a palate split (TOPS), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFO), and median labioglossomandibulotomy (MLM). Methods. Twelve unembalmed cadaveric heads with normal mouth opening capacity were serially dissected. For each approach, quantitation of extracranial periclival exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation (known here as surgical freedom) was accomplished by stereotactic localization. To quantify the extent of extracranial clival exposure obtained, anatomical measurements of the extracranial clivus were performed on 17 dry skull bases. The values (means ± standard deviations in mm2) for periclival exposure and surgical freedom, respectively, for the surgical approaches studied were as follows: STO = 492 ± 229 and 3164 ± 1900; TOPS = 743 6 319 and 3478 ± 2363; LFO = 689 ± 248 and 2760 ± 1922; and MLM 1312 ± 384 and 8074 ± 6451. The extent of linear midline clival exposure and the percentage of linear midline clival exposure relative to the total linear midline exposure were as follows, respectively: STO = 0.6 ± 4.9 mm and 7.8 ± 11%; TOPS = 8.9 ± 5.5 mm and 24.2 ± 16.7%; LFO = 32.9 ± 10.2 mm and 85.0 ± 18.7%; and MLM = 2.1 ± 4.4 mm and 6.7 ± 11.1%. Conclusions. The choice of approach and the resulting degree of complexity and associated morbidity depends on the location of the pathological entity. The authors found that the MLM approach, like the STO approach, provided good exposure of the craniocervical junction but limited exposure of the clivus. The TOPS approach, an approach attended by a lesser risk of morbidity, provided adequate exposure of the extracranial inferior clivus. Maximal exposure of the extracranial clivus proper was provided by the LFO approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)301-308
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Neurosurgery
Volume105
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Le Fort Osteotomy
Posterior Cranial Fossa
Palate
Morbidity
Skull Base
Mouth
Head

Keywords

  • Clivus
  • Le Fort I osteotomy
  • Mandibulotomy
  • Maxillotomy
  • Transoral approach
  • Transpharyngeal approach

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus. / Balasingam, Vijayabalan; Anderson, Gregory; Gross, Neil D.; Cheng, Cheng Mao; Noguchi, Akio; Dogan, Aclan; McMenomey, Sean O.; Delashaw, Johnny B.; Andersen, Peter.

In: Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 105, No. 2, 2006, p. 301-308.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Balasingam, V, Anderson, G, Gross, ND, Cheng, CM, Noguchi, A, Dogan, A, McMenomey, SO, Delashaw, JB & Andersen, P 2006, 'Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus', Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 301-308. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2006.105.2.301
Balasingam, Vijayabalan ; Anderson, Gregory ; Gross, Neil D. ; Cheng, Cheng Mao ; Noguchi, Akio ; Dogan, Aclan ; McMenomey, Sean O. ; Delashaw, Johnny B. ; Andersen, Peter. / Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus. In: Journal of Neurosurgery. 2006 ; Vol. 105, No. 2. pp. 301-308.
@article{b5de4b833ab64ef5913cf7df12e78d18,
title = "Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus",
abstract = "Object. The authors conducted a cadaveric anatomical study to quantify and compare the area of surgical exposure and the freedom available for instrument manipulation provided by the following four surgical approaches to the extracranial periclival region: simple transoral (STO), transoral with a palate split (TOPS), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFO), and median labioglossomandibulotomy (MLM). Methods. Twelve unembalmed cadaveric heads with normal mouth opening capacity were serially dissected. For each approach, quantitation of extracranial periclival exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation (known here as surgical freedom) was accomplished by stereotactic localization. To quantify the extent of extracranial clival exposure obtained, anatomical measurements of the extracranial clivus were performed on 17 dry skull bases. The values (means ± standard deviations in mm2) for periclival exposure and surgical freedom, respectively, for the surgical approaches studied were as follows: STO = 492 ± 229 and 3164 ± 1900; TOPS = 743 6 319 and 3478 ± 2363; LFO = 689 ± 248 and 2760 ± 1922; and MLM 1312 ± 384 and 8074 ± 6451. The extent of linear midline clival exposure and the percentage of linear midline clival exposure relative to the total linear midline exposure were as follows, respectively: STO = 0.6 ± 4.9 mm and 7.8 ± 11{\%}; TOPS = 8.9 ± 5.5 mm and 24.2 ± 16.7{\%}; LFO = 32.9 ± 10.2 mm and 85.0 ± 18.7{\%}; and MLM = 2.1 ± 4.4 mm and 6.7 ± 11.1{\%}. Conclusions. The choice of approach and the resulting degree of complexity and associated morbidity depends on the location of the pathological entity. The authors found that the MLM approach, like the STO approach, provided good exposure of the craniocervical junction but limited exposure of the clivus. The TOPS approach, an approach attended by a lesser risk of morbidity, provided adequate exposure of the extracranial inferior clivus. Maximal exposure of the extracranial clivus proper was provided by the LFO approach.",
keywords = "Clivus, Le Fort I osteotomy, Mandibulotomy, Maxillotomy, Transoral approach, Transpharyngeal approach",
author = "Vijayabalan Balasingam and Gregory Anderson and Gross, {Neil D.} and Cheng, {Cheng Mao} and Akio Noguchi and Aclan Dogan and McMenomey, {Sean O.} and Delashaw, {Johnny B.} and Peter Andersen",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.3171/jns.2006.105.2.301",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "105",
pages = "301--308",
journal = "Journal of Neurosurgery",
issn = "0022-3085",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Anatomical analysis of transoral surgical approaches to the clivus

AU - Balasingam, Vijayabalan

AU - Anderson, Gregory

AU - Gross, Neil D.

AU - Cheng, Cheng Mao

AU - Noguchi, Akio

AU - Dogan, Aclan

AU - McMenomey, Sean O.

AU - Delashaw, Johnny B.

AU - Andersen, Peter

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Object. The authors conducted a cadaveric anatomical study to quantify and compare the area of surgical exposure and the freedom available for instrument manipulation provided by the following four surgical approaches to the extracranial periclival region: simple transoral (STO), transoral with a palate split (TOPS), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFO), and median labioglossomandibulotomy (MLM). Methods. Twelve unembalmed cadaveric heads with normal mouth opening capacity were serially dissected. For each approach, quantitation of extracranial periclival exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation (known here as surgical freedom) was accomplished by stereotactic localization. To quantify the extent of extracranial clival exposure obtained, anatomical measurements of the extracranial clivus were performed on 17 dry skull bases. The values (means ± standard deviations in mm2) for periclival exposure and surgical freedom, respectively, for the surgical approaches studied were as follows: STO = 492 ± 229 and 3164 ± 1900; TOPS = 743 6 319 and 3478 ± 2363; LFO = 689 ± 248 and 2760 ± 1922; and MLM 1312 ± 384 and 8074 ± 6451. The extent of linear midline clival exposure and the percentage of linear midline clival exposure relative to the total linear midline exposure were as follows, respectively: STO = 0.6 ± 4.9 mm and 7.8 ± 11%; TOPS = 8.9 ± 5.5 mm and 24.2 ± 16.7%; LFO = 32.9 ± 10.2 mm and 85.0 ± 18.7%; and MLM = 2.1 ± 4.4 mm and 6.7 ± 11.1%. Conclusions. The choice of approach and the resulting degree of complexity and associated morbidity depends on the location of the pathological entity. The authors found that the MLM approach, like the STO approach, provided good exposure of the craniocervical junction but limited exposure of the clivus. The TOPS approach, an approach attended by a lesser risk of morbidity, provided adequate exposure of the extracranial inferior clivus. Maximal exposure of the extracranial clivus proper was provided by the LFO approach.

AB - Object. The authors conducted a cadaveric anatomical study to quantify and compare the area of surgical exposure and the freedom available for instrument manipulation provided by the following four surgical approaches to the extracranial periclival region: simple transoral (STO), transoral with a palate split (TOPS), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFO), and median labioglossomandibulotomy (MLM). Methods. Twelve unembalmed cadaveric heads with normal mouth opening capacity were serially dissected. For each approach, quantitation of extracranial periclival exposure and freedom for instrument manipulation (known here as surgical freedom) was accomplished by stereotactic localization. To quantify the extent of extracranial clival exposure obtained, anatomical measurements of the extracranial clivus were performed on 17 dry skull bases. The values (means ± standard deviations in mm2) for periclival exposure and surgical freedom, respectively, for the surgical approaches studied were as follows: STO = 492 ± 229 and 3164 ± 1900; TOPS = 743 6 319 and 3478 ± 2363; LFO = 689 ± 248 and 2760 ± 1922; and MLM 1312 ± 384 and 8074 ± 6451. The extent of linear midline clival exposure and the percentage of linear midline clival exposure relative to the total linear midline exposure were as follows, respectively: STO = 0.6 ± 4.9 mm and 7.8 ± 11%; TOPS = 8.9 ± 5.5 mm and 24.2 ± 16.7%; LFO = 32.9 ± 10.2 mm and 85.0 ± 18.7%; and MLM = 2.1 ± 4.4 mm and 6.7 ± 11.1%. Conclusions. The choice of approach and the resulting degree of complexity and associated morbidity depends on the location of the pathological entity. The authors found that the MLM approach, like the STO approach, provided good exposure of the craniocervical junction but limited exposure of the clivus. The TOPS approach, an approach attended by a lesser risk of morbidity, provided adequate exposure of the extracranial inferior clivus. Maximal exposure of the extracranial clivus proper was provided by the LFO approach.

KW - Clivus

KW - Le Fort I osteotomy

KW - Mandibulotomy

KW - Maxillotomy

KW - Transoral approach

KW - Transpharyngeal approach

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33747286461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33747286461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3171/jns.2006.105.2.301

DO - 10.3171/jns.2006.105.2.301

M3 - Article

VL - 105

SP - 301

EP - 308

JO - Journal of Neurosurgery

JF - Journal of Neurosurgery

SN - 0022-3085

IS - 2

ER -