4.5 Article

The Supraorbital Endoscopic Approach for Aneurysms

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 S130-S137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.07.038

关键词

Intracranial aneurysms; Keyhole neurosurgery; Minimally invasive neurosurgery; Supraorbital craniotomy; Transcranial endoscope-assisted microneurosurgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To review our surgical experience in minimally invasive transcranial endoscope-assisted microsurgical treatment of intracranial aneurysms, using the supraorbital keyhole craniotomy. METHODS: The supraorbital keyhole approach was performed through an eyebrow skin incision in 793 cases for treatment of 989 intracranial aneurysms. Of patients, 474 were operated on after subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 319 were operated on under elective conditions. After lateral frontobasal burr hole trephination, a limited subfrontal craniotomy was created. To achieve adequate intraoperative exposure through the limited approach, endoscopes were used routinely. Surgical outcome was assessed using the modified Rankin scale. RESULTS: The transcranial endoscope-assisted microneurosurgery technique was used routinely via a supraorbital approach. In 152 operations (19.1%), the endoscope provided important visual information in the vicinity of the aneurysm, revealing subsequent clip repositioning. The results of incidental aneurysms were excellent with a modified Rankin scale score <= 2 in 96.52%. The overall outcome of ruptured aneurysms was good with a modified Rankin scale score <= 2 in 72.2% of patients. There were no approach-related intraoperative or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally invasive supraorbital keyhole approach allowed safe surgical treatment of intracranial aneurysms, including after subarachnoid hemorrhage. The markedly improved endoscopic visualization increased the assessment of clip placement with ideal control of surrounding vessels including perforators for identification of incorrect clip position.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据