RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Accessing the petrous apex (PA) via an endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) is challenging due to its posterior and lateral anatomical relationship with the paraclival carotid artery. Typically, the EEA requires the mobilization or compression of the vessel and the use of angled-lens endoscopes and instruments. A sublabial contralateral transmaxillary (CTM) corridor has been used to overcome these challenges. Still, it requires extensive osteo-meatal disruption and drilling of the medial pterygoid process, which risks the vidian nerve and increases nasal morbidity. Furthermore, the CTM corridor positions the endoscope in the same horizontal plane as the instruments passing through the nostrils, leading to fencing. The authors propose a novel minimally invasive route to the PA, the precaruncular contralateral medial transorbital (cMTO) corridor, to address these issues. This anatomical study compares the EEA+CTM and EEA+cMTO corridors in accessing the PA. METHODS: The authors dissected 14 fresh, preinjected cadaveric specimens (28 sides) using neuronavigation to complete EEA, cMTO, and CTM on each side. In addition to qualitative analysis, they measured and compared the working distance between the entry point (nose, orbit, maxilla) and the petrosal process of the sphenoid bone (PPSB), superomedial PA, and foramen lacerum (FL); angle of attack (AoA); area of surgical freedom; endoscope-instrument fencing angle; and visual angle for each approach. RESULTS: The cMTO corridor provided the shortest working distance to the petroclival region (PA = 67.4 ± 4.47 mm, PPSB = 67.57 ± 4.33 mm, and FL = 66.30 ± 4.77 mm) compared to the CTM (PA = 75.85 ± 3.63 mm, PPSB = 76 ± 3.96 mm, and FL = 74.52 ± 4.26 mm) and to the EEA (PA = 85.16 ± 3.16 mm, PPSB = 84.55 ± 3.02 mm, and FL = 83.42 ± 3.21 mm, p < 0.001). Both CTM and cMTO corridors had a similar visual angle to the PA (20.72° ± 2.16° and 21.63° ± 1.84°, respectively), offering a similar but significantly better visualization than EEA alone (44.71° ± 3.24°, p < 0.001). The cMTO corridor provided better instrument maneuverability than the CTM, as evidenced by a significantly greater fencing angle (30.9° ± 4.9°) than with the CTM (21.7° ± 4.02°, p < 0.001). The vertical AoAs for the EEA, cMTO, and CTM corridors were 9.79° ± 1.75°, 10.65° ± 0.82°, and 9.82° ± 1.43°, respectively (p = 0.009), whereas in the horizontal plane, these were 9.29° ± 1.51°, 9.10° ± 0.73°, and 10.49° ± 1.43° (p < 0.001), respectively. Both the CTM and cMTO corridors offered similar areas of surgical freedom (678.06 ± 99.5 mm2 and 673.59 ± 104.8 mm2, p = 0.986), but they were more significant than that provided by the EEA 487.29 ± 112.9 mm2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The EEA+cMTO multiport technique may be a better alternative than the EEA+CTM multiport approach for targeting the petroclival region. However, clinical validation is required to confirm these laboratory findings.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive endoscopic endonasal multiport approaches create additional visualization angles to treat skull base pathologies. The sublabial contralateral transmaxillary (CTM) approach and superior eyelid lateral transorbital approach, frequently used nowadays, have been referred to as the "third port" when used alongside the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA). The endoscopic precaruncular contralateral medial transorbital (cMTO) corridor, on the other hand, is an underrecognized but unique port that has been used to repair CSF rhinorrhea originating from the lateral sphenoid sinus recess. However, no anatomical feasibility studies or clinical experience exists to assess its benefits and demonstrate its potential role in multiport endoscopic access to the other contralateral skull base areas. In this study, the authors explored the application and potential utility of multiport EEA combined with the endoscopic cMTO approach (EEA/cMTO) to three target areas of the contralateral skull base: lateral recess of sphenoid sinus (LRSS), petrous apex (PA) and petroclival region, and retrocarotid clinoidocavernous space (CCS). METHODS: Ten cadaveric specimens (20 sides) were dissected bilaterally under stereotactic navigation guidance to access contralateral LRSS via EEA/cMTO. The PA and petroclival region and retrocarotid CCS were exposed via EEA alone, EEA/cMTO, and EEA combined with the sublabial CTM approach (EEA/CTM). Qualitative and quantitative assessments, including working distance and visualization angle to the PA, were recorded. Clinical application of EEA/cMTO is demonstrated in a lateral sphenoid sinus CSF leak repair. RESULTS: During the qualitative assessment, multiport EEA/cMTO provides superior visualization from a high vantage point and better instrument maneuverability than multiport EEA/CTM for the PA and retrocarotid CCS, while maintaining a similar lateral trajectory. The cMTO approach has significantly shorter working distances to all three target areas compared with the CTM approach and EEA. The mean distances to the LRSS, PA, and retrocarotid CCS were 50.69 ± 4.28 mm (p < 0.05), 67.11 ± 5.05 mm (p < 0.001), and 50.32 ± 3.6 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean visualization angles to the PA obtained by multiport EEA/cMTO and EEA/CTM were 28.4° ± 3.27° and 24.42° ± 5.02° (p < 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiport EEA/cMTO to the contralateral LRSS offers the advantage of preserving the pterygopalatine fossa contents and the vidian nerve, which are frequently sacrificed during a transpterygoid approach. This approach also offers superior visualization and better instrument maneuverability compared with EEA/CTM for targeting the petroclival region and retrocarotid CCS.