Piper, Keaton

OBJECTIVE The principal tenet of minimally invasive neurosurgery is to limit approach-related tissue trauma, and a major assumption is that shorter incisions and smaller openings, in addition to protecting the brain, also have some perceptible benefits for the patient. This study tests the assumption of patient benefit and tries to define its significance. METHODS Procedures that fit the inclusion criteria of minimally invasive transcranial "keyhole" surgery were sought in the principal investigator’s archives. Each case was then paired with a classic procedure performed within the study time frame by the two senior authors, matched for pathology, size, location, and complexity. These pairs were then compared using a statistical tool (i.e., the Wilcoxon signed-rank test) designed for matched samples. Differences in estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, and length of hospital stay were examined. The narcotic needs during hospitalization were also examined as morphine milligram equivalent (MME). RESULTS Ninety patients were included in this study, evenly split between the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and classic cohorts. Comparison of the 45 pairs showed no significant difference in estimated blood loss, though the operative times favored the MIS cohort significantly (mean ± SEM 310 ± 17 minutes vs 383 ± 24 minutes, p = 0.02). The length of stay was shorter for MIS, but the difference reached statistical significance only when cases with complications were excluded. The most important finding was that significantly less narcotic was needed during hospitalization in the MIS cohort (83 ± 15 MME vs 257 ± 47 MME). CONCLUSIONS The large difference in narcotic needs points to enhanced recovery from MIS techniques. While the difference in operative time did not lead to significantly shorter hospital stays, data suggest that minimally invasive technique may benefit the patient during recovery. This inspires further investigations to define the potentially positive impact on hospital and healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The trans-sinus transglabellar and bifrontal approaches offer direct access to the anterior cranial fossa. However, these approaches present potential drawbacks. We propose the biportal endoscopic transfrontal sinus (BETS) approach, adapting endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) techniques for minimally invasive access to the anterior fossa, reducing tissue manipulation, venous sacrifice, and brain retraction. METHODS: Six formalin specimens were used. BETS approach involves 2 incisions over the medial aspect of both eyebrows from the supraorbital notch to the medial end of the eyebrow. A unilateral pedicled pericranial flap is harvested. A craniotomy through the anterior table of the frontal sinus (FS) and a separate craniotomy through the posterior table are performed. Two variants of the approach (preservative vs cranialization) are described for opening and reconstruction of the FS based on the desired pathology to access. Bone flap replacement can be performed with titanium plates and filling of the external table defect with bone cement. RESULTS: Like in EEA, this approach provides access for endoscope and multiple working instruments to be used simultaneously. The approach allows wide access to the anterior cranial fossa, subfrontal, and interhemispheric corridors, all the way up to the suprachiasmatic corridor and through the lamina terminalis to the third ventricle. BETS provides direct access to the anterior fossa, minimizing the level of frontal lobe retraction and providing potentially less tissue disruption and improved cosmesis. Cerebrospinal fluid fistula risk remains one of the major concerns as the narrow corridor limits achieving a watertight closure which can be mitigated with a pedicled flap. Mucocele risk is minimized with full cranialization or reconstruction of the FS. CONCLUSION: The BETS approach is a minimally invasive approach that translates the concepts of EEA to the FS. It allows excellent access to the anterior cranial fossa structures with minimal frontal lobe retraction.

Keyhole approaches, performed with the endoscope, microscope, or exoscope, aim to minimize tissue traumatization while maximizing surgical view. The exoscope can provide better ergonomics than the microscope without restricting the space inside of the keyhole, as when using the endoscope. However, a frequently quoted reason for intraoperative exoscope-to-microscope conversion is the absence of sufficient light. In this video, the authors present 4 patients who underwent posterior fossa keyhole surgery without intraoperative conversion. The surgical objective was achieved in all patients without associated morbidity. After adequate adaptation, the exoscope allows sufficient light in the surgical field to perform safe keyhole surgery. The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2023.10.FOCVID23116

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The transorbital approach varies by the extent of bony removal and the target. Orbital rim-sparing transorbital approach with removal of only the orbit's posterior wall provides optimal cosmetic results, without the need for reconstruction. The size of this corridor, limited by the medial globe retraction, has not yet been defined and is difficult to determine in cadavers because of postmortem tissue desiccation. By using patient-specific models in virtual reality, precise areas and degrees of surgical freedom (AOF and DOF, respectively) provided by globe retraction were calculated. These measurements define a potential maximum safe AOF and DOF, as well as the globe retraction, needed to achieve a sufficient surgical corridor. METHODS: Using a virtual reality system, transorbital rim-preserving craniectomies were performed. The axial and sagittal DOF as well as AOF were calculated lateral to the globe, limited by the orbital rim and globe, with an anterior clinoid target. The DOFs and AOFs were calculated for each degree of medial globe retraction and analyzed using paired t tests. RESULTS: With only 5 mm of retraction, the AOF was 886 mm 2 , while at 10 mm, the AOF was 1546 mm 2 . This increase between 5 and 10 mm allowed for the largest increase in surgical working corridor ( P = .02). At 15 mm of retraction (previously studied point at which intraocular pressure raises), the AOF averaged 2189 mm 2 and axial DOF averaged 23.1°. Eighteen DOF (a previously studied point needed to achieve sufficient working space for 2 instruments) was achieved at 11 mm on average, generating 1675 mm 2 AOF. CONCLUSION: Globe retraction of 11 mm is needed to achieve sufficient DOF for 2 surgical instruments, and 15 mm of retraction is a conservative limit that provides comparable AOFs with similar cranial approaches.