Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The telovelar approach for fourth ventricular tumors in children: is removal of the posterior arch of C1 necessary?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The telovelar approach for fourth ventricular tumors in children: is removal of the posterior arch of C1 necessary?
Do you wish to request the book?
The telovelar approach for fourth ventricular tumors in children: is removal of the posterior arch of C1 necessary?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The telovelar approach for fourth ventricular tumors in children: is removal of the posterior arch of C1 necessary?
2024
Overview
Purpose
Various surgical nuances of the telovelar approach have been suggested. The necessity of removing the posterior arch of C1 to accomplish optimal tumor exposure is still debated. Therefore, we report on our experience and technical details of the fourth ventricular tumor resection in a modified prone position without systematic removal of the posterior arch of C1.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of all pediatric patients, who underwent a fourth ventricular tumor resection in the modified prone position between 2012 and 2021, was performed.
Results
We identified 40 patients with a median age of 6 years and a M:F ratio of 25:15. A telovelar approach was performed in all cases. In 39/40 patients, the posterior arch of C1 was not removed. In the remaining patient, the reason for removing C1 was tumor extension below the level of C2 with ventral extension. Gross or near total resection could be achieved in 34/39 patients, and subtotal resection in 5/39 patients. In none of the patients, a limited exposure, sight of view, or range of motion caused by the posterior arch of C1 was encountered, necessitating an unplanned removal of the posterior arch of C1. Importantly, in none of the cases, the surgeon had the impression of a limited sight of view to the most rostral parts of the fourth ventricle, which necessitated a vermian incision.
Conclusion
A telovelar approach without the removal of the posterior arch of C1 allows for an optimal exposure of the fourth ventricle provided that critical nuances in patient positioning are considered.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
