Retrosigmoid versus Retrolabyrinthine Posterior Petrosal Route to the Petroclival Area: Quantitative Assessment of Endoscope-Assisted Approaches and Correlations with Morphometric Features

Abstract

Using a cadaveric model, we compared endoscope-assisted retrosigmoid (EAR) and endoscope-assisted retrolabyrinthine posterior petrosal (EARPP) approaches towards the petroclival area, regarding surgical exposure and instrument maneuverability, also verifying how some petroclival morphometric parameters correlate with these variables. In five cadaver heads, EAR approach was performed on one side and EARPP on the other (10 approaches). Under endoscopic view, neuronavigation coordinates were acquired to compute areas of exposure (petroclival and pontomedullary) and maneuverability at Dorello's canal entrance to run the comparison. Correlations of these variables with petroclival angle and clival depth were also analyzed. EAR and EARPP showed equivalence regarding surgical exposure (petroclival: 365.85 ± 133.12 mm2 and 320.62 ± 103.44 mm2, respectively, p = 0.69; pontomedullary: 255.83 ± 88.26 mm2 and 229.80 ± 74.39 mm2, respectively, p = 0.83), but EAR afforded greater maneuverability at Dorello's canal (1155.88 ± 134.35 mm2, p = 0.03). The petroclival angle and clival depth showed different strong correlations with maneuverability depending upon the route, but not with surgical exposure in both approaches. Endoscopic techniques can spare the need for additional steps of greater morbidity when approaching the petroclival area in both routes. A simpler and faster approach as EAR was favored over EARPP in this standardized quantitative assessment. The petroclival angle and clival depth may interfere with maneuverability, but not with surgical exposure in both endoscope-assisted approaches.