Detailed Anatomy for the Transoral Approach to the Craniovertebral Junction: An Exposure and Safety Study

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to demonstrate the anatomical structures of the transoral approach to the craniovertebral junction. We evaluated the necessary exposure field and the safety of this approach.

Methods Surgical operations with the transoral approach were performed on 36 cadaver specimens. The special anatomical structures were measured surrounding the exposure field with priorities given to measurements relating to the vertebral artery (VA). The anatomical relationships between the VA and nerves were observed.

Results The exposure field partly covered the vertebral basilar system confluent. The middle clivus to upper C3 vertebral body can be exposed by transoral approach. Cranial nerves and cervical nerves emerged from the caudal of vertebrobasilar artery and circumambulated anterolaterally, and some abnormalities were observed in the intracranial segment of vertebrobasilar artery. The safe field was in an inverted trapezoid shape, of which the widest point was 25.5 ± 4.5 mm to the midline at C1 transverse process level; the narrowest point was 11.2 ± 1.5 mm to the midline at the C2–3 level.

Conclusion Because the VA is the landmark of the safe field in this approach, surgeons should be very careful to avoid injuries of the VA and nerves while operating in the intracranial field or at the C2–3 level.

• References

• 1 Tun K, Kaptanoglu E, Cemil B, Karahan ST, Esmer AF, Elhan A. A neurosurgical view of anatomical evaluation of anterior C1-C2 for safer transoral odontoidectomy. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (6) 853-856
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Ludwig K, Duda G, Mittlmeier T, Haas NP. Biomechanical comparison of four anterior atlantoaxial plate systems. J Neurosurg 2002; 96 )3, Suppl): 313-320
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Yin Q, Ai F, Zhang K , et al. Irreducible anterior atlantoaxial dislocation: one-stage treatment with a transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate fixation and fusion. Report of 5 cases and review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30 (13) E375-381
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Stulík J, Vyskocil T, Sebesta P, Kryl J. Harms technique of C1-C2 fixation with polyaxial screws and rods. [in Czech]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2005; 72 (1) 22-27
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Crockard HA. Transoral approach to intra/extradural tumors. In: Sekhar LN, Janecka IP, , eds. Surgery of Cranial Base Tumors. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1993: 225-234
  Google Scholar
• 6 Garfin SR, Bruce E. Surgery for Spinal Cord Injuries. New York NY: Northrup Raven Press; 1993
  Google Scholar
• 7 Youssef AS, Guiot B, Black K, Sloan AE. Modifications of the transoral approach to the craniovertebral junction: anatomic study and clinical correlations. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (3) (Suppl. 01) 145-154 ; discussion 154–155
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Liu JK, Couldwell WT, Apfelbaum RI. Transoral approach and extended modifications for lesions of the ventral foramen magnum and craniovertebral junction. Skull Base 2008; 18 (3) 151-166
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Resch KD. Minimally invasive techniques in neurosurgery: the transoral transpharyngeal approach to the brain. Neurosurg Rev 1999; 22 (1) 2-25 ; discussion 26–27
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kandziora F, Schulze-Stahl N, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, Schröder R, Mittlmeier T. Screw placement in transoral atlantoaxial plate systems: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg 2001; 95 (1, Suppl): 80-87
  PubMedGoogle Scholar