Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base
DOI: 10.1055/a-2576-7408
Original Article

The Supraorbital Keyhole Craniotomy Approach for Olfactory Implantation: A Radiological Feasibility Study

Lauren J. Sterlin
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia, United States
,
Arman Saeedi
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia, United States
,
William C. Broaddus
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia, United States
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia, United States
,
Daniel H. Coelho
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia, United States
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives

Olfactory implants to address anosmia have gained interest in recent years. Existing transnasal and transcranial approaches to the olfactory bulb (OB) have potential complications. We aim to determine whether transcranial supraorbital keyhole craniotomy (SOKC) provides adequate and safe access to the OB. Secondary outcomes include highlighting specific anatomical obstructions and impacts of patient characteristics.

Study Design

This is a retrospective cohort study.

Setting

This study was conducted at the Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

Methods

Fifty fine-cut computed tomographies of the sinuses in consecutive adult patients (50% male) were analyzed. Image processing was performed using syngo.via to assess whether there was a clear path from points on the exterior skull to the anterior or posterior OB. Using five points based on the SOKC technique on the exterior skull, lines were drawn from each point to the ipsilateral anterior and posterior OB resulting in 1,000 pathways. Pathways were reconstructed and analyzed for violations of the orbit, orbital bone, or sinuses.

Results

A total of 96% of the subjects had at least one unobstructed pathway to the OB. The route most commonly unobstructed (90%) was 2P (2 cm above the supraorbital notch to posterior bulb). The posterior OB was less obstructed than the anterior (56, 112; p = 0.00002). The most common obstruction was an ipsilateral sinus.

Conclusion

The SOKC may be an effective and safe approach for an olfactory implant in many patients. The posterior OB had a clearer approach with less obstruction. By avoiding injury to the nasal mucosa, orbit, sinuses, or traversing the skull base, this approach may prove advantageous over transnasal approaches for olfactory implantation in select patients.

Keywords

anosmia treatment - olfactory implantation - olfactory bulb access

Previous Presentation

This article was presented at the AAO-HNSF 2024 Annual Meeting & OTO Experience, Miami, FL September 28 to October 1, 2024.


Author's Contributions

L.J.S.: conception, design, data collection, data analysis, drafting, final approval; A.S.: data analysis, drafting, final approval; W.C.B.: neurosurgical input, drafting, final approval; D.H.C.: conception, design, data analysis, drafting, final approval.




Publication History

Received: 21 January 2025

Accepted: 04 April 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 April 2025

Article published online:
25 April 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Boesveldt S, Postma EM, Boak D. et al. Anosmia-a clinical review. Chem Senses 2017; 42 (07) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Khani E, Khiali S, Beheshtirouy S, Entezari-Maleki T. Potential pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19 smell and taste loss: a comprehensive review. Eur J Pharmacol 2021; 912: 174582
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Holbrook EH, Coelho DH. Cranial nerve stimulation for olfaction (cranial nerve 1). Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2020; 53 (01) 73-85
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Besser G, Liu DT, Renner B, Hummel T, Mueller CA. Olfactory implant: demand for a future treatment option in patients with olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (02) 312-316
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Coelho DH, Park T, Abdel-Hamid M, Costanzo RM. The olfactory implant system: a novel method to treat anosmia. . Chemical Senses Oxford University Press; E263
  • 6 Menzel S, Konstantinidis I, Valentini M. et al. Surgical approaches for possible positions of an olfactory implant to stimulate the olfactory bulb. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2023; 85 (05) 253-263
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Czyz M, Tabakow P, Hernandez-Sanchez I, Jarmundowicz W, Raisman G. Obtaining the olfactory bulb as a source of olfactory ensheathing cells with the use of minimally invasive neuroendoscopy-assisted supraorbital keyhole approach--cadaveric feasibility study. Br J Neurosurg 2015; 29 (03) 362-370
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Ormond DR, Hadjipanayis CG. The supraorbital keyhole craniotomy through an eyebrow incision: its origins and evolution. Minim Invasive Surg 2013; 2013: 296469
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Suzuki M, Takashima T, Kadoya M, Takahashi S, Miyayama S, Taira S. MR imaging of olfactory bulbs and tracts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989; 10 (05) 955-957
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Robinow ZM, Peterson C, Waldau B, Shahlaie K. Supraorbital keyhole craniotomy via eyebrow incision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2022; 158: e509-e542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 VanEpps JS, Younger JG. Implantable device-related infection. Shock 2016; 46 (06) 597-608
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Bedi R, Vu T, Bansal A. Left ventricular assist device implantation to the left subclavian artery with distal banding: a novel technique for hostile chest. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; 113 (05) e381-e383
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bandino F, Pendolino A, Bates J, Qureishi A, Martinez-Devesa P. Frontal sinus stenting in endoscopic sinus surgery: the 10-year Oxford experience. J Laryngol Rhinol Otol 2024; 138 (01) 60-66
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Tabaja H, Yuen J, Tai DBG. et al. Deep brain stimulator device infection: the Mayo Clinic Rochester experience. Open Forum Infect Dis 2022; 10 (01) ofac631
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lander DP, Durakovic N, Kallogjeri D. et al. Incidence of infectious complications following cochlear implantation in children and adults. JAMA 2020; 323 (02) 182-183
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Adappa ND, Lee JY, Chiu AG, Palmer JN. Olfactory groove meningioma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2011; 44 (04) 965-980 , ix
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Thaher F, Hopf N, Hickmann AK. et al. Supraorbital keyhole approach to the skull base: evaluation of complications related to CSF fistulas and opened frontal sinus. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2015; 76 (06) 433-437
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Torales J, Di Somma A, Alobid I. et al. Endonasal versus supraorbital approach for anterior skull base meningiomas: results and quality of life assessment from a single-surgeon cohort. Neurocirugia (Astur Engl Ed) 2024; 35 (04) 177-185
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Benkhatar H, Loubieres C, Kada AR, De Malherbe M, Meunier N. Midline olfactory implantation: a cadaveric study of endoscopic transseptal transcribriform approach. Rhinology 2022; 60 (02) 145-147
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar