Direct and Oblique Approaches to the Craniovertebral Junction: Nuances of Microsurgical and Endoscope-Assisted Techniques Along with a Review of the Literature

Surgical Management of Extradural Tumors at the Craniovertebral Junction - Insights from a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

Craniovertebral junction (CVJ) tumors are challenging due to their unique anatomical location. This study aimed to evaluate the complexities in dealing with such precarious CVJ extradural lesions over the decade.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients of extradural CVJ tumors operated between 2009 and 2018 were included. The demographic details, neurological status, surgical approach, extent of resection, type of fixation, complications, and outcome at final follow-up were recorded for each patient.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 39.5 ± 20 years. Most (17/27) of the patients had involvement of a single level. Clivus was the most common (9/17) involved region followed by atlas (7/17) vertebrae. Majority of the patients (13/27) were operated through the posterior-only approach. About 15 patients (55.5%) had instability or extensive lesions that necessitated posterior fixation. None of the patients underwent anterior fixation. Gross and near total excision were achieved in 10 patients (37%) and 3 patients (11%) respectively while 14 patients underwent subtotal excision of tumor. On histopathological analysis, clival chordoma (8/27) was found to be the most common pathology followed by giant cell tumor (6/27), plasmacytoma (4/27), and multiple myeloma (2/27). Most patients (13 out of 27) had the same neurological status after the surgery. Six patients (22%) improved post-operatively with decreased weakness and spasticity. Thirteen (48%) patients underwent adjuvant radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study provides valuable insights into managing extradural CVJ tumors and highlights the importance of individualized approaches for optimal outcome.

Anterior cervical osteophytes causing dysphagia: Choice of the approach and surgical problems

Background

Anterior cervical osteophytes (ACOs) may rarely cause dysphagia, dysphonia, and dyspnea. Symptomatic ACOs are most commonly located between C3 and C7, whereas those at higher cervical (C1-C2) levels are rarer. We report a case series of 4 patients and discuss the best surgical approach according to the ostheophyte location and size, mainly for those located at C1-C2, and the related surgical problems.

Materials and Methods

Four patients (two males and two females) aged from 57 to 72 years were operated on for ACOs, causing variable dysphagia (and dyspnea with respiratory arrest in one). Three patients with osteophytes between C3 and C5 were approached through antero-lateral cervical approach, and one with a large osteophyte between C1 and C3-C4 level underwent a two-stage transcervical and transoral approach. All had significant postoperative improvement of dysphagia.

Results

The patient operated on though the transoral approach experienced postoperative flogosis of the prevertebral tissues and occipital muscles and thrombosis of the right jugular vein and transverse-sigmoid sinuses (Lemierre syndrome).

Conclusion

The transoral approach is the best surgical route to resect C1 and C2 ACOs, whereas the endoscopic endonasal approach is not indicated. The anterior transcervical approach is easier to resect osteophytes at C3, as well as those located below C3. A combined transoral and anterior cervical approach may be necessary for multilevel osteophytes.

Endonasal and Transoral Approaches to the Craniovertebral Junction: A Quantitative Anatomical Study

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic endonasal approach has recently been added to the surgical armamentarium to access the anterior craniovertebral junction (CVJ). Comparative analyses with the transoral approach are scarce. The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative anatomical analysis of both approaches.

METHODS

In four specimens the endoscopic endonasal approach (before and after sphenoidectomy) and the transoral approach (without and with a soft palate split) were performed. ApproachViewer-part of GTx-UHN (Guided Therapeutics software, developed at University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada)-was used to quantify and visualize the working volume, as well as the exposed area, of each surgical approach. Different modalities (crossing and non-crossing) were used to quantify the exposure of the deep surface, providing an indirect quantitative value of the 'surgical freedom'. The lowest point exposed by the endonasal approaches was compared with that predicted by preoperative radiological lines. Non-parametric Welch analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The working volume was significantly larger and the distance to the target was shorter with the transoral approaches than with the endonasal approaches. Clival exposure was better with the endonasal approaches than with the non-crossing transoral approach without a soft palate split; areas below C1 were better exposed with the transoral routes. The nasoaxial line best predicted surgical exposure with the endonasal approaches.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic endonasal and transoral approaches to the anterior CVJ provide optimal exposure of different areas that overlap at the level of C1 when no anatomical anomalies are present. A split of the soft palate is not necessary during the transoral approach if it is combined with an endoscopic endonasal approach.

Transoral Versus Transnasal Approach for Craniovertebral Junction Pathologies: Which Route Is Better?

BACKGROUND

Several pathologies that affect the craniovertebral junction (CVJ) can be treated by means of a microsurgical transoral approach (TOA) or, alternatively, with an endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA), which is potentially able to overcome some complications associated with the former approach. In this paper, after discussing updates in the recent literature, to which we add our own surgical experience, we critically analyse these procedures with the aim of demonstrating that the TOA still deserves to be considered a viable alternative and that, in selected cases, it can even be considered superior to the EEA.

METHODS

Our experience involves 25 anterior procedures in 24 paediatric and adult patients (18 TOA and seven EEA). The TOA group (13 male and five female patients) encompassed three tumours, three rheumatoid arthritis cases, one condylus tertius, three basilar invaginations, four impressio basilaris cases, one developmental anomaly of C0-C1, one os odontoideum, one posttraumatic C1-C2 compression and one C2 fracture. The EEA group (three male and four female patients, median age 39 years, operated on over a 7-year period) comprised four tumours, two impressio basilaris cases and one case of impressio basilaris with platybasia.

RESULTS

In the TOA group, all but one patient were discharged after posterior procedures within 2 weeks and improved or remained unchanged after surgery and during the follow-up period. No major complications occurred in the TOA group. In the EEA group, two patients who developed a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infection died, one from disease progression and the other from myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

Our data, in agreement with those from previous reports on other series, suggest that no clear superiority of the EEA over the endoscopic TOA can be postulated so far; in fact, the EEA can produce complications similar to those observed with the TOA in CVJ surgery.

Transoral Versus Transnasal Approach for Craniovertebral Junction Pathologies: Never Say Never

OBJECTIVE

For many years, the microsurgical transoral approach (TOA) has been accepted as the "gold standard" for the surgical treatment of a variety of congenital, developmental, and acquired pathologies affecting the craniovertebral junction. In the present study, we try to investigate both experimental and clinical fronts of such a challenging surgery, starting from the updated literature experience. TOA is actually presented as an "old-fashioned" surgical technique dealing with possible bacterial contamination, the need of postoperative nose gastric tube feeding for a week, the possible nasopharyngeal incompetence, and the postoperative tongue swelling. Otherwise, the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) appears strongly supported by the modern literature as the true "minimally invasive" procedure.

METHODS

Our clinical experience deals with 23 anterior procedures in paediatric and adult patients (17 TOA and 6 EEA). We further report on our experimental cadaver laboratory study of 12 subjects.

RESULTS

All the patients of TOA group but one were discharged after posterior procedures within two weeks and improved or remained unchanged after surgery and during the follow-up. No mayor complications occurred in TOA group. In EEA group two patients died for cerebrospinal fluid infection, for disease progression and for heart attack.

CONCLUSION

Our and other available data suggest that no clear superiority of EEA over endoscopic TOA can be assessed so far; on the other hand, EEA can produce complications similar to TOA in craniovertebral junction surgery.