Minimizing Retraction by Pia-Arachnoidal 10-0 Sutures in Intrasulcal Dissection

Brain retraction injury: systematic literature review

Cerebral retraction is frequently required in cranial surgery to access deep areas. Brain retractors have been systematically used in the past, but they have been associated with brain injury. Nonetheless, they are still used and, even recently, new systems have been advocated. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic and critical review of brain retraction injury. A systematic literature review was performed in February 2023 according to PRISMA statement. Search terms included brain retraction and injury, with their variations and pertinent associations. Studies reporting qualitative and quantitative data on brain retraction injury were included. Out of 1689 initially retrieved articles, 90 and 26 were included in the systematic review for qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. The definition of brain retraction injury varies and its reported incidence in clinical studies is 5-10%, up to 47% if cerebral edema is considered. Some studies have hypothesized threshold values of pressures to be respected in order to prevent complications, with most data deriving from animal studies. At present, there are no instruments for brain retraction that can guarantee full safety. Some form of cerebral retraction might always be necessary for specific scenarios. Further studies are needed to collect quantitative and, ideally, clinical and comparative data on pressure thresholds to develop retraction systems that can reduce injury to a minimum.

Tumor retractor: a simple and novel instrument for brain tumor surgery

Background

It is important to secure a surgical space during brain tumor surgery. One of the commonly used methods is to retract the brain. We hypothesized that the tumor can be retracted and that the normal brain tissue retraction can be minimized during surgery, and thus, the degree of collateral damage caused by brain retraction would be reduced.

Methods

The tumor retractor had a 90°, hard, and sharp tip for fixation of the tumor. The distal part of the retractor has a malleable and thin blade structure. By adjusting the angle of the distal malleable part of the tumor retractor, the operator can make the retracting angle additionally. Retractors with thin blade can be used in a conventional self-retraction system. To pull and hold the tumor constantly, the tumor retractor is held by a self-retraction system. The surgical technique using a tumor retractor is as follows: The first step is to fix the retractor to the tumor. The second step is to pull the retractor in the operator’s desired direction by applying force. After the tumor is pulled by adjusting the degree of force and angle, the surgical arm should be held in place to maintain the tumor retracted state.

Results

The tumor retractor was used to minimize the brain retraction, pulling the tumor in the opposite direction from the surrounding brain tissue. In clinical cases, we can apply the tumor retractor with good surgical outcomes.

Conclusions

A tumor retractor can be used to pull a tumor and minimize the brain retraction.

Less is more: Parahippocampal resection or endoscopic assistance in ambient cistern surgery? Qualitative and quantitative assessment of subtemporal approach

The ambient cistern is an arachnoid complex that extends from the crural cistern to lateral border of cerebral colliculi. The subtemporal approach has been recognized as the best access to reach pathologies in the ambient cistern, however many disadvantages exist. The present work aims to analyze quantitatively the area of exposure provided by the subtemporal access. The objective is to evaluate if there are advantages of using the neuroendoscope in conventional subtemporal access when compared to the subtemporal access with resection of the parahippocampal gyrus. A subtemporal approach was performed in six brain hemispheres. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were made. The linear exposition of the vascular structures and the surgical exposure area were evaluated. The linear exposure to the posterior cerebral artery was 5.95 for subtemporal access (ST) and 13.6 for subtemporal access with resection of the parahippocampal gyrus (STh) (p = 0.019). The total exposure area was 104.8 mm² for ST and 210.5 for STh (p = 0.0001). Regarding endoscope assistance the medial area, ST was 81.0 mm², and STend was 176.2 mm² (p = 0.038). For the total area of exposure, we obtained a value of 210.5 mm² for ST and a value of 391.3 mm² for STend (p = 0.041). In conventional subtemporal access, the use of the neuroendoscopes avoids the need for resection of the parahippocampal gyrus for better visualization of the ambient cistern structures.