 |
|
The Transglabellar/Subcranial Approach to the Anterior Skull Base
A Review of 72 Cases
Robert M. Kellman, MD;
Lawrence Marentette, MD
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:687-690.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objectives To describe the transglabellar/subcranial approach to the anterior skull
base and to compare it with more traditional approaches to craniofacial resection.
Design A retrospective analysis of 72 cases at 2 academic medical centers.
The main parameters analyzed were the disease entities treated, the average
operating room time, the average amount of blood loss, the number of transfusions,
the length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and complication rates.
These were compared with published data for traditional craniofacial approaches.
Setting All patients were operated on by the authors in collaboration with neurosurgical
teams at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse,
and the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor.
Patients The transglabellar/subcranial approach was performed 72 times in 69
patients in this series. Forty-two procedures in 40 patients were performed
for malignant disease and 30 procedures in 29 patients were performed for
benign entities. Patients' ages ranged from 2 to 78 years. Follow-up ranged
from 6 months to 4 years, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year for survivors.
Results There were no operative mortalities. Operating time, average amount
of blood loss, length of hospital and intensive care unit stays, and complication
rates compared favorably with published results of traditional craniofacial
resections.
Conclusions The transglabellar/subcranial approach to the anterior skull base may
be a reasonable technique for the surgical management of lesions in the region
of the anterior skull base. It provides excellent exposure of the nasal cavity,
the orbits, and the ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses, while allowing wide access
to the anterior fossa with a minimum amount of frontal lobe retraction.
INTRODUCTION
LESIONS OF the nose and paranasal sinuses that extend into the anterior
cranial fossa pose a technical challenge from the standpoint of both resection
and the avoidance of complications. During the last 3 decades, the techniques
of craniofacial resection for these lesions have gained acceptance, and numerous
reports have detailed their effectiveness; complications, though not trivial,
have been minimized to acceptable levels.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
The standard (traditional) approach combines a lateral rhinotomy, with
or without a Weber-Ferguson facial flap, with a bifrontal craniotomy. First
introduced by Smith et al10 in 1954, in this
technique, the junctional area of the skull base between the nose, sinuses,
and anterior fossae is approached from above by the neurosurgical team and
from below by the head and neck surgical team, with the 2 teams meeting in
the middle. While certainly successful, the approach requires significant
retraction of the frontal lobes, which makes en bloc resection of the entire
lesion difficult. Nonetheless, excellent results have been reported by many
experienced teams.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
The transglabellar/subcranial approach was developed by Raveh et al11 as a natural offshoot of their experience with frontobasal
trauma, in which fractures that involved the nasal root/glabellar region,
the ethmoid sinuses, and the anterior fossae were dismantled prior to reconstruction.
It is an extension of the work of Janecka and Sekhar12
combined with the advances introduced by Tessier13
for craniofacial surgery. By directly approaching the base of the anterior
skull by disarticulating the nasal root with the frontal bone flap, more direct
access to the anterior fossa floor can be obtained.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
In 1997, Jung et al14 reported a retrospective
comparison between their first 10 cases using this approach and 10 cases using
the traditional lateral rhinotomy, bifrontal craniotomy approach. The current
report details a retrospective analysis of our combined experience of using
the subcranial approach in 69 patients and compares it with the classic approach.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
PATIENTS
The transglabellar/subcranial approach was performed 72 times in 69
patients in this series at the hospitals of the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, and the State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse.
Forty-two procedures in 40 patients were performed for malignant disease,
and 30 procedures in 29 patients were performed for benign entities. Ages
ranged from 2 to 78 years. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 4 years, with
a minimum follow-up of 1 year for survivors.
METHODS
Surgical Technique
The surgical technique for the transglabellar/subcranial approach has
been described by Raveh et al.20, 21
It basically involves a coronal incision taken down to the bone. The flap
is elevated using great care to preserve the pericranium, so that it can be
used for later lining of the skull base defect. The bone flap is outlined
to include the nasal bones and nasal root and a portion of the frontal bone.
The size of the frontal bone and the amount of the orbital rims included in
the flap is determined by the amount of exposure that will be needed. It can
vary from a limited frontal bone flap (Figure
1) to an extended frontal flap (Figure 2). Rigid fixation microplates may be applied to the frontal
bones and removed prior to making the osteotomies to ensure the exact repositioning
of the bone flap during closure.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. A, The outline of the bone cuts
in situ prior to elevation of the flap. B, The frontonasal flap after removal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. An extended frontonasal flap used
in the transglabellar/subcranial approach.
|
|
|
If the tumor extends anteriorly in the ethmoid sinuses, the bone cut
will generally need to be anterior to the anterior lacrimal crest(s). If the
lesion is more posterior, the lacrimal crests may be preserved in the flap,
and, occasionally, for a tumor that does not involve the ethmoid sinuses,
an anterior position of the lateral nasal bone cuts will allow preservation
of the medial canthal attachments. In most cases, the medial canthal ligaments
are disarticulated. If the posterior wall of the frontal sinus is to be excised,
then an osteoplastic anterior frontal wall excision may be combined with the
glabellar/nasal cuts. Otherwise, the entire frontal sinus may be included
in the bone flap. Unlike Raveh et al,20 who
separated the distal nasal bones from the upper lateral cartilages of the
nose, we left 3 to 5 mm of distal nasal bone intact to preserve the internal
nasal valves.
Before the frontal bone cuts are completed (so that the bone flap is
still stable), an osteotome is placed horizontally behind the glabella to
fracture the flap from the crista galli, making every effort to stay as anterior
as possible to avoid penetration of the anterior fossa dura. Similarly, the
bony nasal septum must be fractured behind the nasal bone portion of the flap.
The flap is then elevated, revealing a direct view of the nose, the ethmoid
sinuses, and the anterior fossa dura. The resection is then performed as appropriate
for the lesion being treated. Whenever possible, one or both sides of the
cribriform plate and olfactory elements are preserved. The direct view makes
unilateral preservation of olfaction easy without jeopardizing the en bloc
resection. Exposure posteriorly to the posterior sphenoid and pituitary fossa
and inferiorly to the palate and nasopharynx is possible.
After the resection of the lesion has been completed, the anterior fossa
may be separated from the nose and sinuses using the previously preserved
pericranium either as a thin pericranial flap or as a thicker galeal/pericranial
flap. Note that a hole must be created in the center of the pericranial flap
for replacement of the bone flap. Care should be taken to avoid injury to
the bilateral supraorbital vessels. Before the bone flap is fixed in place,
the medial canthal ligaments are sutured independently to the opposite frontal
bone, with the sutures passing behind the nasal bones (centripetal suspension)
(Figure 3). The frontal sinuses
are generally obliterated (although Raveh et al20
stent them into the nose).
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of
centripetal suspension of the medial canthal ligament as described by Raveh
et al.20 When the medial canthal ligaments
are fixed bilaterally, they are tightened independently to the opposite frontal
bone. P indicates pericranial flap.
|
|
|
Review
Patient data were analyzed for the nature of the disease process and
the results of surgery. The number of major complications, average operating
room (OR) time, average blood loss, number of transfusions, and average volume
of blood transfused were included, as well as the average time of hospitalization
and average length of time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU). Surgical
outcomes were noted, although the follow-up was too short to assess long-term
success rates.
RESULTS
A total of 72 transglabellar/subcranial approaches were performed in
69 patients. Forty-two procedures were performed in 40 patients for malignant
disease, including 6 esthesioneuroblastomas, 6 adenocarcinomas, 5 squamous
cell carcinomas, 4 sinonasal undifferentiated carcinomas, 4 adenoid cystic
carcinomas, and 15 miscellaneous lesions. Thirty procedures were performed
in 29 patients for benign disease ranging from inverting papillomas to dermoids
and encephaloceles. The average OR time was 8 hours for malignant diseases
and 5 hours for benign diseases (6.75 hours overall). Average blood loss was
1100 mL for malignant disease and 504 mL for benign disease (849 mL overall),
and 21 patients with malignant disease received an average transfusion of
3 U of blood each, while 3 patients with benign disease received 1 U each.
The duration of hospitalization and ICU stays averaged 11 days and 4 days,
respectively, for malignant disease, and 7 days and 2 days for benign disease.
Major complications (including tension pneumocephalus, persistent leak
of cerebrospinal fluid, meningitis, loss of the bone flap, and subdural hematoma)
occurred in 12 (29%) of 42 procedures for malignant disease and 4 (13%) of
30 procedures for benign disease. There were no operative mortalities. The
major predictor of complications was dural involvement by malignant disease,
with 6 of 9 suffering major complications and 8 of 9 dying of their disease.
Eleven (28%) of 40 patients with malignant disease had positive margins, 6
of whom suffered complications and 5 of whom died of disease. Of 29 patients
with negative margins, 9 (31%) had complications and 6 (21%) died of disease.
Twenty-two (55%) of 40 patients with malignant disease had radiation therapy,
including 4 (10%) who had radiation failure and 18 (45%) who were given planned
postoperative treatment. There was no measurable correlation between radiation
and occurrence of complications.
To the extent that data were available, a meta-analysis of similar results
from other reports is presented in Table
1, Table 2, and Table 3.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Major Complications Reported Using the Transglabellar/Subcranial
Approach*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Major Complications Reported Using the Classic Craniofacial
Approach*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Reported Data for the Classic Craniofacial Approach*
|
|
|
COMMENT
Simultaneous combined craniofacial resection has evolved over the past
40 years from an extremely high-risk procedure with a high risk of meningitis
and death to an accepted treatment for lesions of the anterior skull base
and sinuses. Although such procedures were originally performed only as staged
procedures, the increased cooperation between neurosurgeons and head and neck
surgeons has led to many recent advances. The transglabellar/subcranial approach
is such an advance, since the osteotomies and flap elevation require simultaneous
effort and complete cooperation between the neurosurgical and head and neck
teams. Rather than a revolutionary concept, this approach is a logical step
in the progression of osteotomies available. It builds upon the pioneering
work of Frazier,22 Smith et al,10
and Ketcham et al,23 who demonstrated the possibilities
for transfacial approaches, and the developments of Tessier13
and Derome,24 who advocated the transbasal
approach. The more recent advances of Lawton et al,25
Fukuta et al,26 and Janecka and Sekhar12 paved the way for the subcranial approach.
The transglabellar/subcranial approach as advocated by Raveh et al20, 21 was a logical development of their
experience with severe frontobasal trauma. Initially, they used transethmoidal
approaches in these severely traumatized cases,27
noting over time that completely disarticulating the fractured nasal-ethmoid
complex led to better access to the floor of the frontal fossa for dural repair
without frontal lobe retraction and ultimately more controlled repair of the
medial canthal tendons, the anterior skull base, and the nasal roots.20, 21, 27, 28
While several authors have published experience with the transglabellar/subcranial
approach,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
the inclusion of the nasal root and nasal bones in the craniotomy flap still
seems either aggressive or unnecessary to some. While it decreases some cosmetic
deformity by avoiding all facial incisions (unlike the lateral rhinotomy incision
of the traditional approach), it does increase the risk of cosmetic deformity
when there is loss of some or all of the bone flap (as in one of our patients).
In this series, the complication rates were similar to or better than
those reported in most series of craniofacial resections. As noted in the
retrospective comparison of this technique with the classic approach, overall
surgical times, ICU stays, transfusion rates, complication rates, and hospital
stays compared favorably in our series as well. Success and failure rates
are similar for malignant disease, and, as in previously reported series,
dural involvement with malignant disease is the single greatest predictor
of complications and failures. The perioperative mortality for this procedure
as seen in the meta-analysis is significantly lower than that reported using
the traditional craniofacial resection.
CONCLUSIONS
The results in this series of patients operated on using the transglabellar/subcranial
approach to the anterior skull base suggest that it is a reasonable technique
for surgical management of lesions in the region of the anterior skull base.
It provides excellent exposure of the nasal cavity, orbits, and ethmoid and
sphenoid sinuses while allowing wide access to the anterior fossa with a minimum
amount of frontal lobe retraction.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication November 15, 2000.
From the Departments of Otolaryngology, State University of New York
Upstate Medical University, Syracuse (Dr Kellman), and University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor (Dr Marentette).
Corresponding author and reprints: Robert MKellman, MD, Department
of Otolaryngology, Upstate Medical University, 750 E Adams St, Syracuse, NY
13210.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Levine PA, Scher RL, Jane JA, et al. The craniofacial resection—eleven-year experience at the University
of Virginia: problems and solutions. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1989;101:665-669.
ISI
| PUBMED
2. Richtsmeier WJ, Briggs RJS, Koch WM, et al. Complications and early outcome of anterior craniofacial resection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;118:913-917.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Sekhar LN, Nanda A, Sen CN, Snyderman CN, Janecka IP. The extended frontal approach to tumors of the anterior, middle, and
posterior skull base. J Neurosurg. 1992;76:198-206.
ISI
| PUBMED
4. McCaffrey TV, Olsen KD, Yohanan JM, Lewis JE, Ebersold MJ, Piepgras DG. Factors affecting survival of patients with tumors of the anterior
skull base. Laryngoscope. 1994;104(8 pt 1):940-945.
5. Deschler DG, Gutin PH, Mamelak AN, et al. Complications of anterior skull base surgery. Skull Base Surg. 1996;6:113-118.
6. McCutcheon IE, Blacklock JB, Weber RS, et al. Anterior transcranial (craniofacial) resection of tumors of the paranasal
sinuses: surgical technique and results. Neurosurgery. 1996;38:471-480.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Shah JP, Kraus DH, Arbit E, Galicich JH, Strong EW. Craniofacial resection for tumors involving the anterior skull base. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;106:387-393.
ISI
| PUBMED
8. Kraus DH, Shah JP, Arbit E, et al. Complications of craniofacial resection for tumors involving the anterior
skull base. Head Neck. 1994;16:307-312.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
9. Shah JP, Kraus DH, Bilsky MH, Gutin PH, Harrison LH, Strong EW. Craniofacial resection for malignant tumors involving the anterior
skull base. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123:1312-1317.
FREE FULL TEXT
10. Smith RR, Klopp CT, Williams JM. Surgical treatment of cancer of the frontal sinus and adjacent areas. Cancer. 1954;7:991-994.
PUBMED
11. Raveh J, Vuillemin T, Sutter F. Subcranial management of 395 combined frontobasal-midface fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1988;114:1114-1122.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Janecka IP, Sekhar LN. Anterior and anterolateral craniofacial resection. In: Sekhar LN, Janecka IP, eds. Surgery of Cranial
Base of Tumors. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1993:47-156.
13. Tessier P. The definitive plastic surgical treatment of the severe facial deformities
of craniofacial dysostosis: Crouzon's and Apert's diseases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;48:419-492.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
14. Jung TM, TerKonda RP, Haines SJ, Strome S, Marentette LJ. Outcome analysis of the transglabellar/subcranial approach for lesions
of the anterior cranial fossa: a comparison with the classic craniotomy approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;116(6 pt 1):642-646.
15. Pinsolle J, San-Galli F, Siberchicot F, Caix P, Emparanza A, Michelet FX. Modified approach for ethmoid and anterior skull base surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117:779-782.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Delfini R, Iannetti G, Belli E, Santoro A, Ciapetti P, Cantore G. Cranio-facial approaches for tumours involving the anterior half of
the skull base. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1993;124:53-60.
FULL TEXT
17. Vanaclocha V, Saiz-Sapena N. Surgical treatment of anterior skull base tumours. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139:857-868.
FULL TEXT
18. Roux FX, Devaux B, Nataf F, et al. Tumeurs malignes de la region ethmoidale: techniques neurochirurgicales
[review]. Neurochirurgie. 1997;43:92-99.
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Briant TD, Zorn M, Tucker W, Wax MK. The craniofacial approach to anterior skull base tumors. J Otolaryngol. 1993;22:190-194.
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Raveh J, Laedrach K, Speiser M, et al. The subcranial approach for fronto-orbital and anteroposterior skull-base
tumors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993;119:385-393.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Raveh J, Turk JB, Laedrach K, et al. Extended anterior subcranial approach for skull base tumors: long-term
results. J Neurosurg. 1995;82:1002-1010.
ISI
| PUBMED
22. Frazier CH. An approach to the hypophysis through the anterior cranial fossa. Ann Surg. 1913;57:145-150.
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Ketcham AS, Wilkins RH, VanBuren JM, Smith RR. A combined intracranial facial approach to the paranasal sinuses. Am J Surg. 1963;106:698-703.
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Derome PJ. The transbasal approach to tumors invading the base of skull. In: Schmidek MH, Sweet WH, eds. Current Techniques
in Operative Neurosurgery. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton; 1977:223-245.
25. Lawton MT, Hamilton MG, Beals SP, Joganic EF, Spetzler RF. Radical resection of anterior skull base tumors [review]. Clin Neurosurg. 1995;42:43-70.
PUBMED
26. Fukuta K, Saito K, Takahashi M, Torii S. Surgical approach to midline skull base tumors with olfactory preservation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:318-325.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Raveh J, Redli M, Markwalder TM. Operative management of 194 cases of combined maxillofacial-frontobasal
fractures: principles and surgical modifications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984;42:555-564.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Raveh J, Laedrach K, Vuillemin T, Zingg M. Management of combined frontonaso-orbital/skull base fractures and
telecanthus in 355 cases. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;118:605-614.
FREE FULL TEXT
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(6):725-726.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Transglabellar Subcranial Approach for the Management of Nasal Masses With Intracranial Extension in Pediatric Patients
Goyal et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007;9:314-317.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Intra-arterial Cisplatin and Concomitant Radiation Therapy Followed by Surgery for Advanced Paranasal Sinus Cancer
Samant et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:948-955.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
