Peris Celda, Maria

OBJECTIVE Imaging surveillance with serial MRI, or a "wait-and-scan" approach, is a management option for patients with small or medium-sized vestibular schwannomas (VSs). Prior publications have indicated no distinct quality of life advantage to upfront treatment compared with initial wait-and-scan management. However, imaging surveillance is dependent on patient adherence to follow-up. In this study, the authors aimed to identify rates and predictors of patient loss to follow-up during wait-and-scan management of sporadic VS. METHODS A single-center study was conducted including all patients from 2013 to 2018 who had undergone upfront imaging surveillance of sporadic VS. Patient data were retrospectively obtained from the electronic medical record. Outcomes of interest included loss to follow-up unrelated to death and inconsistent adherence to imaging surveillance recommendations. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate factors associated with loss to follow-up. RESULTS Over a 6-year study period, 270 patients underwent initial imaging surveillance of a sporadic VS. The median tumor diameter was 8.6 mm (range 1–28.9 mm). At the time of censoring, 106 patients (39.3%) had received treatment, 157 (58.1%) had been advised to continue follow-up, and 7 (2.6%) had died of non–VS-related causes. In total, 73 patients (27.0%) were completely lost to follow-up prior to the first treatment or death. Additionally, 60 patients (22.2%) missed at least 1 MRI follow-up or imaging follow-up was delayed by more than 1 year. Multivariable logistic regression identified an out-of-state residence (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.58–5.89, p = 0.0009) and a smaller tumor size (unit OR per 1-mm increase in size, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83–0.95, p = 0.0006) to be associated with loss to follow-up. Patients living ≥ 350 miles from the hospital or with tumors ≤ 3 mm at the time of initial clinic evaluation were most likely to be lost to follow-up. Only a smaller tumor size was associated with an increased risk of inconsistent imaging follow-up (unit OR per 1-mm increase in size, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87–0.98, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing imaging surveillance of VS are at risk for loss to follow-up and inconsistent imaging surveillance. Patients with smaller tumors or those living farther away from the treating institution are at highest risk for being lost to follow-up.

OBJECTIVE Advances in surgical technology and microneurosurgery have led to increased utilization of so-called minimally invasive approaches, including the supraorbital eyebrow (SE) and minipterional (MPT) approaches for lesions involving the interpeduncular region. This study aimed to describe and compare anatomical landmarks, along with highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the SE and MPT approaches to the interpeduncular region. METHODS Ten formalin-fixed, latex-injected cadaveric specimens were used to perform bilateral SE and MPT approaches to the interpeduncular region. The operative depth of each approach to key anatomical landmarks was measured. Forty-five axial thin-slice computed tomography studies were reviewed to calculate the operative angles, with consideration of the midline as a reference. A 3D interactive anatomical model generated through the photogrammetry scanning technique was described. RESULTS The depths of the operative corridors of the SE and MPT approaches to the interpeduncular fossa were 83.4 ± 1.8 mm and 67.7 ± 3.2 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean angle of the MPT approach to the interpeduncular fossa was significantly wider than the one provided by the SE approach (39.9° ± 5.1° vs 28.4° ± 3.6°, p < 0.001). The interpeduncular region can consistently be accessed through the carotid-oculomotor triangle with the SE approach, as well as with the MPT approach. Furthermore, the SE route offered adequate access to the interpeduncular fossa through the opticocarotid triangle. The MPT route provided direct access to the upper prepontine cistern and anterior mesencephalic zone (AMZ). CONCLUSIONS The MPT approach provides a wider and shorter operative corridor and can be employed for lesions in the interpeduncular region with extension to the prepontine cistern and ventrolateral midbrain lesions requiring access through the AMZ. The SE approach is better suited for ventromedial midbrain lesions requiring access via the interpeduncular fossa safe entry zone. Additional studies analyzing these approaches in a clinical setting will help to delineate their reliability and efficacy.

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.

OBJECTIVE Several pathologies either invade or arise within the orbit. These include meningiomas, schwannomas, and cavernous hemangiomas among others. Although several studies describing various approaches to the orbit are available, no study describes all cranio-orbital and orbitocranial approaches with clear, surgically oriented anatomical descriptions. As such, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive guide to the microsurgical and endoscopic approaches to and through the orbit. METHODS Six formalin-fixed, latex-injected cadaveric head specimens were dissected in the surgical anatomy laboratory at the authors’ institution. In each specimen, the following approaches were modularly performed: endoscopic transorbital approaches (ETOAs), including a lateral transorbital approach and a superior eyelid crease approach; endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs), including those to the medial orbit and optic canal; and transcranial approaches, including a supraorbital approach, a fronto-orbital approach, and a 3-piece orbito-zygomatic approach. Each pertinent step was 3D photograph–documented with macroscopic and endoscopic techniques as previously described. RESULTS Endoscopic endonasal approaches to the orbit afforded excellent access to the medial orbit and medial optic canal. Regarding ETOAs, the lateral transorbital approach afforded excellent access to the floor of the middle fossa and, once the lateral orbital rim was removed, the cavernous sinus could be dissected and the petrous apex drilled. The superior eyelid approach provides excellent access to the anterior cranial fossa just superior to the orbit, as well as the dura of the lesser wing of the sphenoid. Craniotomy-based approaches provided excellent access to the anterior and middle cranial fossa and the cavernous sinus, except the supraorbital approach had limited access to the middle fossa. CONCLUSIONS This study outlines the essential surgical steps for major cranio-orbital and orbitocranial approaches. Endoscopic endonasal approaches offer direct medial access, potentially providing bilateral exposure to optic canals. ETOAs serve as both orbital access and as a corridor to surrounding regions. Cranio-orbital approaches follow a lateral-to-medial, superior-to-inferior trajectory, progressively allowing removal of protective bony structures for proportional orbit access.

OBJECTIVE Poor pain control has a negative impact on postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction. However, overzealous pain management, particularly with opioids, can confound serial neurological assessments, increase morbidity, and predispose patients to long-term dependence. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in treating postoperative pain and can limit opioid intake, but their use has been limited in patients undergoing craniotomy for brain tumor resection due to concerns of an increased hemorrhage risk. Herein, the authors aim to 1) address the safety of NSAID use in the immediate postoperative setting and 2) determine whether NSAID administration decreases opioid use following craniotomy for tumor resection in adult patients. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 18 years and older with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 60 ml/min/body surface area who had undergone craniotomy for tumor resection at their institution between 2019 and 2021. NSAID use in the first 48 hours following surgery was recorded. Primary outcomes were postoperative hemorrhage requiring a return to the operating room before hospital discharge and within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were more-than-minimal hemorrhage that did not require reoperation, acute kidney injury, and total opioid use within 48 hours after craniotomy. RESULTS Among 1765 reviewed patient records, 1182 were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Amid these records were 114 patients (9.6%) who had received at least one dose of an NSAID within 48 hours of their craniotomy. Four (0.3%) patients experienced bleeding requiring a return to operating room, one of whom was from the NSAID-treated group (RR 3.12, 95% CI 0.33–29.77, p = 0.30). No significant difference in nonoperative intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.54–3.35, p = 0.53), postoperative acute kidney injury, or clinically significant extracranial bleeding was found between the NSAID and no-NSAID groups. Patients in the NSAID group had significantly higher oral morphine equivalent use (median 68 vs 30, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Postoperative NSAID use following craniotomy for tumor resection was not associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage requiring a return to the operating room. The authors noted higher opioid use in the patients treated with NSAIDs, which may reflect underlying reasons for the decision to treat patients with NSAIDs in the immediate postoperative period. These data warrant further investigation of NSAIDs as a safe, opioid-sparing postoperative pain management strategy in patients with normal kidney function who are undergoing intracranial tumor resection.