• Askin Seker, Kohei Inoue, Shigeyuki Osawa, Akin Akakin, Turker Kilic, and Albert L Rhoton.
• Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2010 Dec 1;74(6):583-602.

ObjectiveThe study compared the endoscopic anatomy of the transnasal and transoral approaches to the craniovertebral junction (CVJ).MethodsStructures examined and compared with both the straight and angled telescopes in 10 cadaveric specimens included the pharyngeal walls and adjacent musculature, resected anterior arch of the axis and odontoid, cruciform, axial, and apical ligaments, clival and dural openings, and the intradural exposure.ResultsThere is considerable overlap at the pharyngeal level in the structures that can be viewed by the transoral and transnasal routes. The transoral approach provides a wider corridor with less restricted manipulation of instruments than the transnasal approach, but the transnasal approach provides a better view of the clivus, upper part of the CVJ, and the structures posterior to the removed odontoid and anterior arch of C1. Combining the two approaches provides significantly better access to the midline anterior CVJ than either approach alone, allows the scopes to be advanced in one cavity and the surgical instruments in the other cavity, and reduces the need to split the palate, tongue, or mandible in order to reach the target area. The transnasal approach also allows access to the superior part of the occipital condyles, paraclival areas, and hypoglossal canals without removal of the condyles, but these structures can be exposed by the transoral route only after at least partial removal of the condyles.ConclusionThe endoscopic transoral and transnasal approaches to the CVJ should be viewed as complementary routes as opposed to strict alternatives.Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

32 keywords...

hide…