gms | German Medical Science

ESBS 2005: Skull Base Surgery: An Interdisciplinary Challenge
7. Kongress der Europäischen Schädelbasisgesellschaft & 13. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Schädelbasischirurgie

18. - 21.05.2005, Fulda

Versatility of the subcranial approach and indications for combined procedures in extensive anterior and central skull base tumors

Meeting Contribution

Suche in Medline nach

  • Joram Raveh - Cranio-Maxillofacial, Skull Base, Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
  • Kurt Laedrach - Cranio-Maxillofacial, Skull Base, Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland

ESBS 2005: Skull Base Surgery: An Interdisciplinary Challenge. 7th Congress of the European Skull Base Society held in association with the 13th Congress of the German Society of Skull Base Surgery. Fulda, 18.-21.05.2005. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2009. Doc05esbs05

DOI: 10.3205/05esbs05, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-05esbs053

Veröffentlicht: 27. Januar 2009

© 2009 Raveh et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Introduction

The major advantages of the subcranial approach as developed by us for intra- and extracranial lesions are particularly obvious in the management of extensive skull base tumors which represent the majority of the 222 cases in our series. Out of these 105 were malignant.

The subcranial approach enables by one and the same access from the anterior to the posterior direction, under direct vision, the dissection of the dura and exposure of the skull base planes avoiding frontal lobe retraction. This in contrast to the CFR approach mandating, apart from the craniotomy additional external approaches like the lateral rhinotomy including skin incisions or other transfacial approaches implying damage to uninvolved structures, so as to asses the tumor, often along with a piece meel removal. Thus, in spite of being less invasive the subcranial approach basically differs from the CFR and renders a board exposure and visualization of the tumor borders.

Methods

The subcranial concept enables on the one hand the simultaneous, stepwise exposure of the intracranial, nasal/paranasal, orbital and maxillary extensions/borders of the tumor and a radical en bloc removal. On the other the major advantage consists of the optimal visualization of tumor extensions involving the sphenoidal plane/sphenoid and the parasellar/clival regions, as well as the cavernous sinus, effacing or enclaving the optic nerve/chiasm the cavernous sinus and the ICA along with bone resorbtion. Exposure of these vital structures avoiding unnecessary damage, as well as the ascending and horizontal section of the ICA, the foramen lacerum including the resection of tumor extensions located at the sphenopalatinal, pterygopalatine fossa and infratemporal region enable radical en bloc removal. A more extensive lateral, infratemporal spread and involvement of the middle fossa justify a combination with zygomatic/temporal bone osteotomies. The indication for a combined Le Fort I osteotomy for the resection of tumor extensions involving the pterygoid, masseter and deeper retromaxillary layers. An additional hemimaxillectomy by the intraoral approach is given if the palate and the maxillary bone are involved.

The reconstruction of the skull base and sealing the defects following dura resection and removal of the ethmoidal and sphenoidal planes is performed by using fascia lata. We do not opt for osseous or free flap reconstruction at this area. According to our experience in 222 cases this is sufficient and the correct technique undermining the borders enable a watertight alignment reducing the complications such as: CSF leak or hermiation of the brain tissue, to absolute minimum. The reconstruction of vast fronto-naso-orbital defects following the removal of extensive skull base tumors using different techniques including bone and soft tissue grafts, revascularized free flaps and allomaterials such as: bone source, mesh or resorbable materials have proved to be utmost successful. For particular complex cases refinements and modifications have been developed by us accordingly.

The subcranial approach was developed by us 1978 for the management of extensive combined fronto-naso-orbital and skull base injuries including optic nerve compression, for fronto-orbital advancement in congenital anomalies/hypertelorism and skull base tumors. Although in the 2 previous decades often different terms than the subcranial approach were used and the fronto-nasal osteotomies differ in comparison to the tumor cases the concept and it’s major advantages remain the same [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

A critical evaluation of the contribution of CAS/navigation based on our experience (21) reveals that in spite of being less invasive and damaging than the CFR approaches, the broad exposure under direct vision by the subcranial techniques, the anatomical land marks are clearly visible, thus reducing the indication for CAS significantly. According to our experience the navigation is mainly useful in those cases with destruction of the bone leading to an aberrant anatomical configuration – particularly at the central skull base region – enabling a more secure procedure.

According to the submission guidelines for this contribution the description of the management of extremely interesting cases, as well as further details of the approach, pitfalls, illustrations, tables and further more would have been beyond the scope of this short report. The subcranial approach gained on popularity – on behalf of a better understanding and further crucial aspects we refer to a few representative publications of ours and others [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].

Patients, evaluation and results

Out of the 222 benign and malignant cases 104 managed 1978–1990 were already described [7] and are not be included in this report. The second series of 118 tumors included 58 malignant tumors managed in a prospective manner – the preoperative evaluation board consisted of neuroradiology, neurosurgery and included CT-scans, MRI, angiography and embolization. The postoperative follow up sequence and images were performed according to the same protocol – including the adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy. The staging of the 58 malignant cases was performed according to the ajcc. The majority of this cases was utmost extensive – T4a and T4b included 29% and 54,2% respectively. Only 16,8% were T3. Yet, the categories in this and other staging systems compose each heterogeneous groups including different tumor spread variations and are mostly ineffective in stratifying the cases into clinically relevant categories. As a tertiary referral centre we get tumors in an utmost advanced stage, often including all or at least several of the locations in one and the same patient. Thus an interseries comparison is actually impossible. Extensive involvement of the dura, brain as well as the parasellar region including the optic nerve chiasm and cavernous sinus further such combinations of delicate locations should have a significant prognostic influence concerning the outcome and recurrence rate.

In 5 years the overall and relapse free survival were 67% and 60% respectively and after 10 years overall and relapse free survival were 65% and 42% respectively. The subcranial approach enabled the reduction of complications such as: (N-patients) CSF-Leak (2), Meningitis (0), Pneumocranium (3), Brain edema (1), Enophthalmus (5), Telecanthus (3), Optic nerve / reduced vision (2), Diplopia (2), Amaurosis (0), significantly. The reconstruction of the skull base and the fronto-naso-orbital region with fascia lata and grafts enabled apart from resorbtion of bone grafts in 2 patients, optimal aesthetic and functional results. In regard to the advantages of the subcranial approach and in spite of the extensive resections, the ICU mean stay was reduced to 1,5 days and the hospitalization period was reduced to 12,5 days. The subcranial approach enables major advantages, as well as an utmost favourable quality of life.


References

1.
Raveh J, Neiger M. Die Wiederherstellung bei schweren Gesichtsschädelverletzungen. SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd. 1981;91:206-17.
2.
Raveh J, Vuillemin T. Subcranial management of 395 combined frontobasal-midface fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head and Neck Surg. 1988;114:1114-22.
3.
Raveh J, Vuillemin T. Advantages of an additional subcranial approach in the correction of craniofacial deformities. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988;16:350-8.
4.
Raveh J, Vuillemin T. The subcranial-supraorbital and temporal approach for tumor resection. J Craniofacial Surg. 1990;1(1):53-9.
5.
Vuillemin T, Raveh J. The subcranial approach for the correction of hypertelorism. J Craniofacial Surg. 1990;1(2):91-6.
6.
Raveh J, Vuillemin T. Advantages of the subcranial approach in craniofacial surgery. In: Gruss J, Manson P, Yaremchuk MJ, editors. Rigid fixation of the craniofacial skeleton. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1992. Chapter 44. p. 561-81.
7.
Raveh J, Laedrach K, Speiser M, et al. The subcranial approach for fronto-orbital and anteroposterior skull-base tumors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993;119(4):385-93.
8.
Glicklich RE, Lazor JB. The subcranial approach to trauma of the anterior cranial base. J Craniomaxillofac Trauma. 1995;1(4):56-62.
9.
Raveh J, Imola M, Laedrach K, et al. Update on corrections of craniofacial anomalies. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 1995;3(1):17-38.
10.
Laedrach K, Annino D, Raveh J, et al. Advanced approaches to cranio-orbital injuries. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 1995;3(1):107-30.
11.
Raveh J, Turk J, Laedrach K, et al. The extended anterior subcranial approach for skull base tumors - long-term results. J Neurosurg. 1995;82:1002-10.
12.
Raveh J, Laedrach K, Vuillemin T. Craniofacial congenital anomalies: The subcranial approach. In: Bosniak S, editor. Principles and practice of ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery, Vol. 2. 1996. Chapter 110. p. 1163-77.
13.
Jung TM, Terkonda RP, Haines SJ, et al. Outcome analysis of the transglabellar/subcranial approach for lesions of the anterior cranial fossa: A comparison with the classic craniotomy approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;116(6/1):642-6.
14.
Raveh J, Laedrach K, Iizuka T, et al. The subcranial extended anterior approach for skull base tumors: Surgical procedures and reconstruction. In: Donald PJ, editor. Surgery of the Skull Base. Lippincott-Raven; 1998. Chapter 13. p. 239-61.
15.
Li K, Weber A, Cheney ML. Nasoethmoid/Frontal fractures. In: Cheney ML, editor. Facial Surgery - Plastic and Reconstructive. Williams & Wilkins; 1998. Chapter 13. p. 205-16.
16.
Kellman RM. Use of the subcranial approach in maxillofacial trauma. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 1998;6(4):501-10.
17.
Roux FX, Moussa R, Devaux B, et al. Subcranial fronto-orbito-nasal approach for ethmoid cancers surgical techniques and results. Surg Neurol. 1999;52:501-10.
18.
Moore CE, Ross DA, Marentette LJ, et al. Subcranial approach to tumors of the anterior cranial base: analysis of current and traditional surgical techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;120:387-90.
19.
Ross DA, Marentette JM, Moore CE, et al. Craniofacial resection: decreased complication rate with a modified subcranial approach. Skull Base Surg. 1999;9:95-100.
20.
Fliss DM, Zucker G, Amir A, et al. The subcranial approach for anterior skull base tumors. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;11(4):238-53.
21.
Laedrach K, Remonda L, Lukes A, et al. Evaluation of the contribution of CAS in combination with the subcranial/subfrontal approach in anterior skull base surgery. Skull Base. 2001;11(1): 59-76.
22.
Kellman RM, Marentette L. The transglabellar/subcranial approach to the anterior skull base. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:687-90.
23.
Fliss DM, Gil Z, Spektor S. Skull base reconstruction after anterior subcranial tumor resection. Neurosurg Focus. 2002;12:1-7.
24.
Har-El G. Anterior craniofacial resection without facial skin incisions - A review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(6):780-7.