Quantitative analysis of exposure and surgical maneuverability of three purely endoscopic keyhole approaches to the floor of the third ventricle.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurosurgical sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-21 DOI:10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05455-2
Changfu Zhang, Zhengcun Yan, Xiaodong Wang, Yuping Li, Hengzhu Zhang
{"title":"Quantitative analysis of exposure and surgical maneuverability of three purely endoscopic keyhole approaches to the floor of the third ventricle.","authors":"Changfu Zhang, Zhengcun Yan, Xiaodong Wang, Yuping Li, Hengzhu Zhang","doi":"10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05455-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quantitative anatomic analysis of comprehensively endoscopic approaches to the third ventricle is scarce at present. The objective of the study is to quantitatively assess and compare the exposure and microsurgical maneuverability of three absolutely endoscopic keyhole approaches, including interhemispheric transcallosal transchoroidal (TCTC), frontal transforminal transchoroidal (TFTC) and supraorbital subfrontal translamina terminalis (SFTL) approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Anatomical dissections and exposure of the important structures of the third ventricle were performed using six formalin-fixed cadaveric human heads (twelve sides) under endoscope. Tubular retractor system was used in the TFTC approach. Quantitative anatomical relationship between the important landmarks were obtained. Moreover, the exposure and surgical operability of three approaches were evaluated through applying the rating scale and accomplishing the quantitative anatomic analysis, area of surgical freedom and angle of attack.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mediolateral, anteroposterior (AM: between aqueduct and mammillary body; IM: between infundibular recess and mammillary body) and superoinferior distance of TCTC, TFTC and SFTL approaches were 4.0±1.0, 4.2±0.4, 4.1±1.1 mm; 17.3±1.4, 17.6±0.5, 12.8±3.3 mm (AM); 7.7±0.3, 7.8±0.5 mm, not measured (IM); and 5.6±0.3, 7.8±0.8, 7.8±1.5 mm, respectively. Similar to TFTC, the exposed landmarks of TCTC were almost scored a \"4\" by three neurosurgeons except the infundibular recess scored a \"3\" according to the rating scale. During the SFTL approach, apart from the roof, the majority of the landmarks were scored a \"4\" except for the infundibular recess, which was scored a \"3.\" The mean area of surgical freedom of TCTC (0° endoscope: 220±47; 30°: 247±56 mm<sup>2</sup>) was not significantly different from that of TFTC approach (0° endoscope: 216±49; 30°: 245±53 mm<sup>2</sup>) under same endoscope, P>0.05. Mean angle of attack of TCTC (0° endoscope: 21±4°; 30°: 26±4°) was significantly larger than that of TFTC approach (0° endoscope: 16±3°; 30°: 19±3°), P<0.05.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Purely endoscopic TCTC and TFTC approaches offer brilliant exposure of the anterior, middle and posterior third ventricle. TCTC approach may have better surgical maneuverability than TFTC approach. Despite the long working distance, the whole third ventricle are exposed well except for the roof in the SFTL approach, and surgical manipulation can be accomplished smoothly.</p>","PeriodicalId":16504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05455-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The quantitative anatomic analysis of comprehensively endoscopic approaches to the third ventricle is scarce at present. The objective of the study is to quantitatively assess and compare the exposure and microsurgical maneuverability of three absolutely endoscopic keyhole approaches, including interhemispheric transcallosal transchoroidal (TCTC), frontal transforminal transchoroidal (TFTC) and supraorbital subfrontal translamina terminalis (SFTL) approaches.

Methods: Anatomical dissections and exposure of the important structures of the third ventricle were performed using six formalin-fixed cadaveric human heads (twelve sides) under endoscope. Tubular retractor system was used in the TFTC approach. Quantitative anatomical relationship between the important landmarks were obtained. Moreover, the exposure and surgical operability of three approaches were evaluated through applying the rating scale and accomplishing the quantitative anatomic analysis, area of surgical freedom and angle of attack.

Results: The mediolateral, anteroposterior (AM: between aqueduct and mammillary body; IM: between infundibular recess and mammillary body) and superoinferior distance of TCTC, TFTC and SFTL approaches were 4.0±1.0, 4.2±0.4, 4.1±1.1 mm; 17.3±1.4, 17.6±0.5, 12.8±3.3 mm (AM); 7.7±0.3, 7.8±0.5 mm, not measured (IM); and 5.6±0.3, 7.8±0.8, 7.8±1.5 mm, respectively. Similar to TFTC, the exposed landmarks of TCTC were almost scored a "4" by three neurosurgeons except the infundibular recess scored a "3" according to the rating scale. During the SFTL approach, apart from the roof, the majority of the landmarks were scored a "4" except for the infundibular recess, which was scored a "3." The mean area of surgical freedom of TCTC (0° endoscope: 220±47; 30°: 247±56 mm2) was not significantly different from that of TFTC approach (0° endoscope: 216±49; 30°: 245±53 mm2) under same endoscope, P>0.05. Mean angle of attack of TCTC (0° endoscope: 21±4°; 30°: 26±4°) was significantly larger than that of TFTC approach (0° endoscope: 16±3°; 30°: 19±3°), P<0.05.

Conclusions: Purely endoscopic TCTC and TFTC approaches offer brilliant exposure of the anterior, middle and posterior third ventricle. TCTC approach may have better surgical maneuverability than TFTC approach. Despite the long working distance, the whole third ventricle are exposed well except for the roof in the SFTL approach, and surgical manipulation can be accomplished smoothly.

对第三脑室底部三种纯内窥镜锁孔方法的暴露和手术可操作性进行定量分析。
背景:目前,对第三脑室全面内窥镜方法的定量解剖分析还很少。本研究的目的是定量评估和比较三种绝对内窥镜锁孔入路的暴露和显微手术可操作性,包括半球间经胼胝体经脉络膜入路(TCTC)、额叶变换经脉络膜入路(TFTC)和眶上额下额叶变换末端入路(SFTL):在内窥镜下使用六个福尔马林固定的尸体人头(十二面)进行解剖和暴露第三脑室的重要结构。在 TFTC 方法中使用了管状牵开器系统。获得了重要地标之间的定量解剖关系。此外,通过应用评分量表和完成定量解剖分析、手术自由区域和攻击角度,对三种方法的暴露和手术可操作性进行了评估:结果:TCTC、TFTC 和 SFTL 三种方法的内外侧距离、前胸距离(AM:导水管和乳腺体之间;IM:泪道凹陷和乳腺体之间)和上内侧距离分别为 4.0±1.0、4.0±1.0、4.0±1.0 和 4.0±1.0。分别为 4.0±1.0、4.2±0.4、4.1±1.1mm;17.3±1.4、17.6±0.5、12.8±3.3mm(AM);7.7±0.3、7.8±0.5mm,未测量(IM);5.6±0.3、7.8±0.8、7.8±1.5mm。与 TFTC 类似,TCTC 暴露的地标也几乎都被三位神经外科医生评为 "4 "分,但根据评分量表,下腹部凹陷被评为 "3 "分。在 SFTL 方法中,除了屋顶外,大部分地标都被评为 "4 "分,只有眼底凹被评为 "3 "分。在相同内窥镜下,TCTC(0°内窥镜:220±47;30°内窥镜:247±56mm2)的平均手术游离面积与 TFTC 方法(0°内窥镜:216±49;30°内窥镜:245±53mm2)的平均手术游离面积无显著差异,P>0.05。TCTC的平均攻角(0°内镜:21±4°;30°:26±4°)明显大于TFTC方法(0°内镜:16±3°;30°:19±3°),PC结论:纯内窥镜TCTC和TFTC方法能很好地暴露第三脑室的前、中和后部。与 TFTC 方法相比,TCTC 方法可能具有更好的手术可操作性。尽管工作距离较长,但在 SFTL 方法中,除顶部外,整个第三脑室都能很好地暴露出来,手术操作也能顺利完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgical sciences
Journal of neurosurgical sciences CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences publishes scientific papers on neurosurgery and related subjects (electroencephalography, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropathology, stereotaxy, neuroanatomy, neuroradiology, etc.). Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of ditorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信