Anna Cho, Maria Aliotti Lippolis, Johannes Herta, Muhammet Dogan, Cora Hedrich, Amedeo A Azizi, Andreas Peyrl, Johannes Gojo, Thomas Czech, Christian Dorfer
{"title":"儿童第四脑室肿瘤的远心端入路:是否有必要切除 C1 后弓?","authors":"Anna Cho, Maria Aliotti Lippolis, Johannes Herta, Muhammet Dogan, Cora Hedrich, Amedeo A Azizi, Andreas Peyrl, Johannes Gojo, Thomas Czech, Christian Dorfer","doi":"10.1007/s00381-024-06443-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Various surgical nuances of the telovelar approach have been suggested. The necessity of removing the posterior arch of C1 to accomplish optimal tumor exposure is still debated. Therefore, we report on our experience and technical details of the fourth ventricular tumor resection in a modified prone position without systematic removal of the posterior arch of C1.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of all pediatric patients, who underwent a fourth ventricular tumor resection in the modified prone position between 2012 and 2021, was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 40 patients with a median age of 6 years and a M:F ratio of 25:15. A telovelar approach was performed in all cases. In 39/40 patients, the posterior arch of C1 was not removed. In the remaining patient, the reason for removing C1 was tumor extension below the level of C2 with ventral extension. Gross or near total resection could be achieved in 34/39 patients, and subtotal resection in 5/39 patients. In none of the patients, a limited exposure, sight of view, or range of motion caused by the posterior arch of C1 was encountered, necessitating an unplanned removal of the posterior arch of C1. Importantly, in none of the cases, the surgeon had the impression of a limited sight of view to the most rostral parts of the fourth ventricle, which necessitated a vermian incision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A telovelar approach without the removal of the posterior arch of C1 allows for an optimal exposure of the fourth ventricle provided that critical nuances in patient positioning are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":9970,"journal":{"name":"Child's Nervous System","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11322403/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The telovelar approach for fourth ventricular tumors in children: is removal of the posterior arch of C1 necessary?\",\"authors\":\"Anna Cho, Maria Aliotti Lippolis, Johannes Herta, Muhammet Dogan, Cora Hedrich, Amedeo A Azizi, Andreas Peyrl, Johannes Gojo, Thomas Czech, Christian Dorfer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00381-024-06443-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Various surgical nuances of the telovelar approach have been suggested. The necessity of removing the posterior arch of C1 to accomplish optimal tumor exposure is still debated. Therefore, we report on our experience and technical details of the fourth ventricular tumor resection in a modified prone position without systematic removal of the posterior arch of C1.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of all pediatric patients, who underwent a fourth ventricular tumor resection in the modified prone position between 2012 and 2021, was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 40 patients with a median age of 6 years and a M:F ratio of 25:15. A telovelar approach was performed in all cases. In 39/40 patients, the posterior arch of C1 was not removed. In the remaining patient, the reason for removing C1 was tumor extension below the level of C2 with ventral extension. Gross or near total resection could be achieved in 34/39 patients, and subtotal resection in 5/39 patients. In none of the patients, a limited exposure, sight of view, or range of motion caused by the posterior arch of C1 was encountered, necessitating an unplanned removal of the posterior arch of C1. Importantly, in none of the cases, the surgeon had the impression of a limited sight of view to the most rostral parts of the fourth ventricle, which necessitated a vermian incision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A telovelar approach without the removal of the posterior arch of C1 allows for an optimal exposure of the fourth ventricle provided that critical nuances in patient positioning are considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child's Nervous System\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11322403/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child's Nervous System\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06443-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child's Nervous System","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06443-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The telovelar approach for fourth ventricular tumors in children: is removal of the posterior arch of C1 necessary?
Purpose: Various surgical nuances of the telovelar approach have been suggested. The necessity of removing the posterior arch of C1 to accomplish optimal tumor exposure is still debated. Therefore, we report on our experience and technical details of the fourth ventricular tumor resection in a modified prone position without systematic removal of the posterior arch of C1.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of all pediatric patients, who underwent a fourth ventricular tumor resection in the modified prone position between 2012 and 2021, was performed.
Results: We identified 40 patients with a median age of 6 years and a M:F ratio of 25:15. A telovelar approach was performed in all cases. In 39/40 patients, the posterior arch of C1 was not removed. In the remaining patient, the reason for removing C1 was tumor extension below the level of C2 with ventral extension. Gross or near total resection could be achieved in 34/39 patients, and subtotal resection in 5/39 patients. In none of the patients, a limited exposure, sight of view, or range of motion caused by the posterior arch of C1 was encountered, necessitating an unplanned removal of the posterior arch of C1. Importantly, in none of the cases, the surgeon had the impression of a limited sight of view to the most rostral parts of the fourth ventricle, which necessitated a vermian incision.
Conclusion: A telovelar approach without the removal of the posterior arch of C1 allows for an optimal exposure of the fourth ventricle provided that critical nuances in patient positioning are considered.
期刊介绍:
The journal has been expanded to encompass all aspects of pediatric neurosciences concerning the developmental and acquired abnormalities of the nervous system and its coverings, functional disorders, epilepsy, spasticity, basic and clinical neuro-oncology, rehabilitation and trauma. Global pediatric neurosurgery is an additional field of interest that will be considered for publication in the journal.