Transcrusal approach to the retrochiasmatic region with special reference to temporal lobe retraction: an anatomical study

Quantitative Anatomical Studies in Neurosurgery: A Systematic and Critical Review of Research Methods

BACKGROUND

The anatomy laboratory can provide the ideal setting for the preclinical phase of neurosurgical research. Our purpose is to comprehensively and critically review the preclinical anatomical quantification methods used in cranial neurosurgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched, yielding 1667 papers. A statistical analysis was performed using R.

RESULTS

The included studies were published from 1996 to 2023. The risk of bias assessment indicated high-quality studies. Target exposure was the most studied feature (81.7%), mainly with area quantification (64.9%). The surgical corridor was quantified in 60.9% of studies, more commonly with the quantification of the angle of view (60%). Neuronavigation-based methods benefit from quantifying the surgical pyramid features that define a cranial neurosurgical approach and allowing post-dissection data analyses. Direct measurements might diminish the error that is inherent to navigation methods and are useful to collect a small amount of data.

CONCLUSION

Quantifying neurosurgical approaches in the anatomy laboratory provides an objective assessment of the surgical corridor and target exposure. There is currently limited comparability among quantitative neurosurgical anatomy studies; sharing common research methods will provide comparable data that might also be investigated with artificial intelligence methods.

Comparison of surgical exposure and maneuverability associated with microscopy and endoscopy in the retrolabyrinthine and transcrusal approaches to the retrochiasmatic region: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

The retrolabyrinthine and transcrusal approaches (RLA and TCA, respectively) are the two most often used posterior transpetrosal approaches that are used to treat lesions in the retrochiasmatic region. Endoscopes are increasingly used in neurosurgical practice. To determine whether a difference exists between the two transpetrosal approaches in the retrochiasmatic region, we evaluated and compared the exposure and maneuverability associated with the microscope and the endoscope in these approaches.

METHODS

Seven formalin-fixed cadaveric heads were dissected bilaterally through the two approaches: four for evaluation and three injected with colored latex for photography. The retrochiasmatic region was divided into four sub-compartments: the compartment before the infundibulum, which was further divided into two parts, (1) the ipsilateral and (2) the contralateral compartments; (3) the retroinfundibulum compartment; (4) the third ventricle. After each approach, exposure and maneuverability of the structures in these four compartments obtained by microscopy and endoscopy were scored under a guidance of a numerical grading system for further comparison.

RESULTS

The TCA provided better exposure and maneuverability at the retrochiasmatic region than the RLA in both the microscopy model [scores of 39.75 ± 2.12 and 32.38 ± 2.56 respectively (p < 0.05)] and the endoscopy model [scores of 82.13 ± 3.40 and 43.75 ± 1.67 respectively (p < 0.05)].

CONCLUSIONS

The TCA is better than the RLA at offering exposure and manipulation to structures in the retrochiasmatic region, especially in patients whose lesion is located high into the third ventricle and/or expanded into the contralateral part. Endoscopes may be helpful in TCA in terms of exposing and maneuvering structures in the contralateral and interpeduncle fossa areas. However, in RLA, not enough room is available for simultaneously maneuvering an endoscope and a surgical instrument.

Quantification and comparison of neurosurgical approaches in the preclinical setting: literature review

There is a growing awareness of the need for evidence-based surgery and of the issues that are specific to research in surgery. Well-conducted anatomical studies can represent the first, preclinical step for evidence-based surgical innovation and evaluation. In the last two decades, various reports have quantified and compared neurosurgical approaches in the anatomy laboratory using different methods and technology. The aim of this study was to critically review these papers. A PubMed and Scopus search was performed to select articles that quantified and compared different neurosurgical approaches in the preclinical setting. The basic characteristics that anatomically define a surgical approach were defined. Each study was analyzed for measured features and quantification method and technique. Ninety-nine papers, published from 1990 to 2013, were included in this review. A heterogeneous use of terms to define the features of a surgical approach was evident. Different methods to study these features have been reported; they are generally based on quantification of distances, angles, and areas. Measuring tools have evolved from the simple ruler to frameless stereotactic devices. The reported methods have each specific advantages and limits; a common limitation is the lack of 3D visualization and surgical volume quantification. There is a need for a uniform nomenclature in anatomical studies. Frameless stereotactic devices provide a powerful tool for anatomical studies. Volume quantification and 3D visualization of the surgical approach is not provided with most available methods.