The Bigger the Better? Analysis of Surgical Complications and Outcome of the Retrosigmoid Approach in 449 Oncological Cases.

Exposure of the posterior skull base and the cerebellopontine angle is challenging due to important neurovascular structures. The retrosigmoid approach (RSA) has become the standard method used in surgery. We report our experiences with RSAs regarding technical obstacles, complications, and approach-related outcomes. We performed a retrospective chart review at a tertiary neurosurgical center between January 2007 and September 2020. We included all patients undergoing surgery for oncologic lesions through RSAs, concentrating on surgical technique, postoperative outcome, and complications. A total of 449 RSAs were included. The median age at the time of surgery was 58 years; 168 (37.4%) were male and 281 (62.6%) were female. The median approach surface was 7.8 cm Tumor volume has an important impact on preoperative symptoms as well as on postoperative complications. Although the extent of the craniotomy barely missed significance regarding GTR, a correlation can be assumed. Thus, the extent of craniotomy should be taken into presurgical consideration, especially in the case of postoperative CSF leaks. Regarding vestibular schwannomas, craniotomy size plays an important role in achieving satisfactory oncological outcomes. Different approaches should be selected where necessary regarding superior resection rates.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Aftahy, Jörger, Hillebrand, Harder, Wiestler, Bernhardt, Combs, Meyer, Negwer and Gempt.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

JG and BM work as consultants for Brainlab (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen). In addition, BM works as a consultant for Medtronic, Spineart, Icotec, Relievant, and DePuy/Synthes. In these firms, BM acts as a member of the advisory board. Furthermore, BM reports a financial relationship with Medtronic, Ulrich Medical, Brainlab, Spineart, Icotec, Relievant, and DePuy/Synthes. He received personal fees and research grants for clinical studies from Medtronic, Ulrich Medical, Brainlab, Icotec, and Relievant. All this happened independently of the submitted work. BM holds royalties/patents for Spineart. All named potential conflicts of interest are unrelated to this study. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.