Citations

In recent years, the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for craniopharyngiomas has proven to be a safe option for extensive tumor resection, with minimal or no manipulation of the optic nerves and excellent visualization of the superior hypophyseal branches when compared to the Transcranial Approach (TCA). However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the criteria for selecting different approaches. To explore the current results of EEA and discuss its role in the management of craniopharyngiomas, we performed MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS searches from 2012 to 2022. Baseline characteristics, the extent of resection, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed through an X2 and Fisher exact test, and a comparison between quantitative variables through a Kruskal–Wallis and verified with post hoc Bonferroni. The tumor volume was similar in both groups (EEA 11.92 cm3, -TCA 13.23 cm3). The mean follow-up in months was 39.9 for EEA and 43.94 for TCA, p = 0.76). The EEA group presented a higher visual improvement rate (41.96% vs. 25% for TCA, p < 0.0001, OR 7.7). Permanent DI was less frequent with EEA (29.20% vs. 67.40% for TCA, p < 0.0001, OR 0.2). CSF Leaks occurred more frequently with EEA (9.94% vs. 0.70% for TCA, p < 0.0001, OR 15.8). Recurrence rates were lower in the EEA group (EEA 15.50% vs. for TCA 21.20%, p = 0.04, OR 0.7). Our results demonstrate that, in selected cases, EEA for resection of craniopharyngiomas is associated with better results regarding visual preservation and extent of tumor resection. Postoperative CSF leak rates associated with EEA have improved compared to the historical series. The decision-making process should consider each person’s characteristics; however, it is noticeable that recent data regarding EEA justify its widespread application as a first-line approach in centers of excellence for skull base surgery.

Introduction Arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction (CCAVFs) are challenging to treat due to variation in angioarchitecture and shunting sites. No consensus exists as to whether open surgery or endovascular approaches are better in regards to outcomes, complications, and need for reintervention. As such, weexplore the efficacy, outcomes, and complications of endovascular versus open surgery for dural arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction. Methods A systematic review was performed using the EMBASE, PubMed,and Cochrane databases in April 2022. MeSH search terms included (craniocervical) AND (arteriovenous OR fistula OR AVF). Inclusion criteria were defined as patients with CCAVFs who were treated with open surgery or endovascular therapy with reported clinical outcomes at 6 months or later. Results A total of 357 studies were screened; of which 75 were included. A total of 416 patients (309 males, 91 females) were included with an average age of 61.9 years. A total of 236 patients underwent surgery (mean age: 61.5), 71 patients underwent embolization (mean age: 62.6), and 25 patients underwent a combination (mean age: 54.7). Outcomes were reported in 39 surgery cases (mean follow up time: 31.4 months), and 54 endovascular cases (mean follow up time: 24.2 months). Within the open surgery group 47 (57.3%) had complete symptom resolution, 23 (28%) had symptom improvement or stabilization, 11 (13.4%) permanent deficit, and 1 (1.2%) resulted in death. Within the endovascular group 26 (56.5%) had complete symptom resolution, 5 (10.9%) had symptom improvement or stabilization, 15 (32.6%) permanent deficit, and 0 (0%) resulted in death. Conclusions Open surgery and embolization yield comparable symptomatic improvement and stabilization. However, the rate of permanent deficits is higher withembolization, while mortality is higher with open surgery. Further studies are required to better associate these outcomes to baseline parameters including treatment decision making, size of the lesion, patient age, and co‐morbidities.

Background: Physicians from the Mediterranean civilization were profoundly instrumental in the early development and contemporary advancement of the craniomaxillofacial field. These feats are scarcely studied or acclaimed. In this editorial, the authors explore the contributions of these major Mediterranean pioneers. Methods: A literature review on the subject was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Mayo Clinic Libraries. Results: Mediterranean medicine has recognized and managed craniomaxillofacial pathologies from as early as the 10th century. The first inscriptions were authored by Abu Alkasem al-Zahrawi and Serefeddin Sabuncuoglu. Starting in the 15th century, Leonardo da Vinci shed light on anatomy and esthetics at a time where Gasparo Tagliacozzi spearheaded maxillofacial techniques. The field during the Renaissance was dominated by Hippocrates Asclepiades. Varaztad Kazanjian revolutionized the armamentarium necessitated by mass emergencies during the World War. In the 20th century, Paul Tessier redefined the limits of craniomaxillofacial treatment by using facial osteotomies and developing refined surgical instruments. Modern day Sam Hamra, Enrico Robotti, and Daniel Labbé continue to lead educational and innovative fronts of the field. Conclusions: This essay highlights some important historical contributions to the fields of craniomaxillofacial and facial plastic surgery by pioneer surgeons from around the Mediterranean.

Abstract Hands‐on dissections using cadaveric tissues for neuroanatomical education are not easily available in many educational institutions due to financial, safety, and ethical factors. Supplementary pedagogical tools, for instance, 3D models of anatomical specimens acquired with photogrammetry are an efficient alternative to democratize the 3D anatomical data. The aim of this study was to describe a technical guideline for acquiring realistic 3D anatomic models with photogrammetry and to improve the teaching and learning process in neuroanatomy. Seven specimens with different sizes, cadaveric tissues, and textures were used to demonstrate the step‐by‐step instructions for specimen preparation, photogrammetry setup, post‐processing, and display of the 3D model. The photogrammetry scanning consists of three cameras arranged vertically facing the specimen to be scanned. In order to optimize the scanning process and the acquisition of optimal images, high‐quality 3D models require complex and challenging adjustments in the positioning of the specimens within the scanner, as well as adjustments of the turntable, custom specimen holders, cameras, lighting, computer hardware, and its software. MeshLab® software was used for editing the 3D model before exporting it to MedReality® (Thyng, Chicago, IL) and SketchFab® (Epic, Cary, NC) platforms. Both allow manipulation of the models using various angles and magnifications and are easily accessed using mobile, immersive, and personal computer devices free of charge for viewers. Photogrammetry scans offer a 360° view of the 3D models ubiquitously accessible on any device independent of operating system and should be considered as a tool to optimize and democratize the teaching of neuroanatomy.