What is the Best Route to the Meckel Cave? Anatomical Comparison between the Endoscopic Endonasal Approach and a Lateral Approach

Background Traditionally, a pterional approach is utilized to access the Meckel cave. Depending on the tumor location, extradural dissection of the Gasserian ganglion can be performed. An endoscopic endonasal access could potentially avoid a craniotomy in these cases. Methods We performed an endoscopic endonasal approach as well as a lateral approach to the Meckel cave on six anatomic specimens. To access the Meckel cave endoscopically, a complete sphenoethmoidectomy and maxillary antrostomy followed by a transpterygoid approach was performed. For lateral access, a pterional craniotomy with extradural dissection was performed. Results The endoscopic endonasal approach allowed adequate access to the Gasserian ganglion. All the relevant anatomy was identified without difficulty. Both approaches allowed for a similar exposure, but the endonasal approach avoided brain retraction and improved anteromedial exposure of the Gasserian ganglion. The lateral approach provided improved access posterolaterally and to the superior portion. Conclusion The endoscopic endonasal approach to the Meckel cave is anatomically feasible. The morbidity associated with brain retraction from the open approaches can be avoided. Further understanding of the endoscopic anatomy within this region can facilitate continued advancement in endoscopic endonasal surgery and improvement in the safety and efficacy of these procedures.     

Rheumatoid Synovectomy: Does the Surgical Approach Matter?

Background  

Surgical synovectomy relieves pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The comparative effect of arthroscopic versus open synovectomy on pain reduction, recurrence of synovitis, radiographic progression, and need for subsequent total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is unclear. Whether synovectomy relieves pain in patients with advanced degenerative joint changes is also controversial.     

A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial in Total Hip Arthroplasty—Comparing Early Results Between the Direct Anterior Approach and the Posterior Approach

Background

We report a prospective randomized study comparing early clinical results between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and posterior approach (PA) in primary hip arthroplasty.

What Is the Learning Curve for the Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

There are many factors that may affect the learning curve for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and surgical approach is one of these. There has been renewed interest in the direct anterior approach for THA with variable outcomes reported, but few studies have documented a surgeon’s individual learning curve when using this approach.

Questions/purposes

(1) What was the revision rate for all surgeons adopting the anterior approach for placement of a particular implant? (2) What was the revision rate for surgeons who performed > 100 cases in this fashion? (3) Is there a minimum number of cases required to complete a learning curve for this procedure?

Methods

The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry prospectively collects data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasty surgery. We analyzed all conventional THAs performed up to December 31, 2013, with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis using a specific implant combination and secondarily those associated with surgeons performing more than 100 procedures. Ninety-five percent of these procedures were performed through the direct anterior approach. Procedures using this combination were ordered from earliest (first procedure date) to latest (last procedure date) for each individual surgeon. Using the order number for each surgeon, five operation groups were defined: one to 15 operations, 16 to 30 operations, 31 to 50 operations, 51 to 100 operations, and > 100 operations. The primary outcome measure was time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship.

Results

Sixty-eight surgeons performed 5499 THAs using the specified implant combination. The cumulative percent revision at 4 years for all 68 surgeons was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5–3.8). For surgeons who had performed over 100 operations, the cumulative revision rate was 3% (95% CI, 2.0–3.5). It was not until surgeons had performed over 50 operations that there was no difference in the cumulative percent revision compared with over 100 operations. The cumulative percent revision for surgeons performing 51 to 100 operations at 4 years was 3% (95% CI, 1.5–5.4) and over 100 operations 2% (95% CI, 1.2–2.7; hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.7–2.7]; p = 0.33).

Conclusions

There is a learning curve for the anterior approach for THA even when using a prosthesis combination specifically marketed for that approach. We found that 50 or more procedures need to be performed by a surgeon before the rate of revision is no different from performing 100 or more procedures. Surgeons should be aware of this initial higher rate of revision when deciding which approach delivers the best outcome for their patients.     

What Is the Infection Rate of the Posterior Approach to Type C Pelvic Injuries?

Background  

Pelvic ring injuries with complete disruption of the posterior pelvis (AO/OTA Type C) benefit from reduction and stabilization. Open reduction in early reports had high infectious complications and many surgeons began using closed reduction and percutaneous fixation. Multiple smaller studies have reported low infection rates after a posterior approach, but these rates are not confirmed in larger series of diverse fractures.     

Does the Anterior Approach for THA Provide Closer-To-Normal Lower-Limb Motion?

The purpose of this study was to compare the muscle-sparing anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty to a traditional lateral approach using 3D motion analysis. Kinematics and kinetics of walking were obtained for 40 patients (20 anterior and 20 lateral) and 20 control participants. Participants were assessed six to twelve months postoperatively. It was hypothesized that the anterior group would have closer-to-normal range of motion, moments, and powers than the lateral group. Both surgical groups had gait anomalies, such as significantly lower peak hip abduction moments. It is therefore thought that other variables such as preoperative gait adaptations, trauma from the surgery, or postoperative protection mechanisms for avoiding loading the prosthesis might be more influential factors than surgical approach when determining function after surgery.     

Obstructive Symptoms Associated with the 9.75-cm Lap-Band® in the First 24 Hours using the Pars Flaccida Approach

Background: For some patients, especially those with a higher BMI, a non-selective Lap-Band? placement using the pars flaccida approach with application of the small-diameter bands (9.75 and 10 cm) may be too tight or may require significant gastroesophageal junction dissection and thinning. In such a case, the major perioperative complication is acute obstruction immediately after surgery. We review the etiology of obstructive complications that present postoperatively in the first 24 hours. Case Reports: Acute postoperative stoma obstruction (esophageal outlet stenosis) was observed in 5 patients who underwent 9.75-cm Lap-Band? placement for morbid obesity. 2 of these patients had a postoperative upper GI series showing a misplaced band with gastric slippage, and repeat operation was required. 3 patients had gastric obstruction without slippage. Of the latter, 1 patient insisted that the band be removed rather than being replaced with a longer one, and the remaining 2 were managed with conservative treatment, involving extended hospitalization until the edema subsided and the patient slowly regained the ability to swallow. Conclusion: Obstructive symptoms associated with the Lap-Band? using the pars flaccida approach can be addressed conservatively in most patients or by minimally invasive surgery; however we believe that routine use of the 11-cm Lap-Band? for the pars flaccida approach could easily prevent this early complication.     

Can the Pectoral Fascia Integrity Be Preserved During Subfascial Breast Augmentation Through the Axillary Approach?

Background  

Although many authors recently have reported good results with subfascial breast augmentation, it still is controversial whether the integrity of the pectoral fascia can be preserved. Some authors think the pectoral fascia will be broken during the operation because it is thin and weak. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether the integrity of the pectoral fascia can be preserved during subfascial breast augmentation through an axillary incision without endoscopic assistance.     

Radical Prostatectomy: Is the Perineal Approach More Difficult to Learn?

Purpose

We assessed the relative difficulty with which radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy operations are learned.

Materials and Methods

The first 10 radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomies performed by 6 graduating urology residents were reviewed for patient and tumor characteristics, duration of surgery and hospitalization, and complication rates.

Results

A total of 120 patients was reviewed. Mean hospital stay was 2.5 days less after radical perineal prostatectomy, and estimated blood loss, number of transfusions and complication rates were also less for this procedure. All parameters used to estimate the outcome of the procedure indicated that radical perineal prostatectomy was learned more quickly than radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Conclusions

In a residency training program radical perineal prostatectomy was learned at least as easily as retropubic prostatectomy. Due to expanding indications for this procedure, these findings should encourage urological surgeons to develop their skill with this approach.