Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2017; 78(06): 588-594
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602698
Technical Note
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Minimally Invasive Biopsies of Deep-Seated Brain Lesions Using Tubular Retractors Under Exoscopic Visualization

Christina Jackson
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Gary L. Gallia
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Kaisorn L. Chaichana
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

05 November 2016

07 March 2017

Publication Date:
08 May 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and Study Aims/Objective Brain lesions in deep-seated locations can present a surgical challenge. Tissue remains the gold standard for diagnosing these lesions to guide potential adjuvant therapy. These lesions have been traditionally approached by stereotactic needle biopsy, open biopsies through craniotomies, and excisional biopsies. We provide a safe alternative method using tubular retractors under exoscopic visualization for biopsies of deep-seated brain lesions.

Material and Methods All patients who underwent a biopsy with the use of a tubular retractor under exoscopic visualization of a deep-seated lesion from January 2013 to September 2016 were identified prospectively and followed. This was done for patients with lesions where extensive resection was not deemed possible because of eloquent location and/or lack of impact on the natural history of the disease.

Results A total of 11 patients, with an average age (plus or minus standard deviation) of 48.7 ± 18.3 years, underwent biopsies with tubular retractors and exoscopic visualization. The locations included thalamus (n = 3), optic pathway (n = 2), deep cerebellar nuclei (n = 1), centrum semiovale/corpus callosum (n = 4), and multifocal (n = 2). Diagnosis was obtained in all patients: glioblastoma multiforme (n = 3), anaplastic astrocytoma (n = 3), demyelinating disease (n = 2), renal cell cancer (n = 1), and lymphoma (n = 2). In all cases with tumors, the molecular analyses were conducted successfully. On postoperative computed tomography, no patients had notable hematomas and no patients had new deficits.

Conclusion Diagnosing brain lesions is critical for guiding potential adjuvant therapies. When surgical resection is not possible or required, we report the efficacy of a tubular retractor system with exoscopic visualization for the safe access of deep-seated lesions to provide adequate tissue for diagnosis and molecular evaluation.

Keywords

biopsy - brain tumor - deep seated - eloquent - tubular retractor
 

  • References

  • 1 Hagen T, Nieder C, Moringlane JR, Feiden W, König J. Correlation of preoperative neuroradiologic with postoperative histologic diagnosis in pathological intracranial processes [in German]. Radiologe 1995; 35 (11) 808-815
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kim JE, Kim DG, Paek SH, Jung HW. Stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions: reliability and its impact on the planning of treatment. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2003; 145 (07) 547-554 ; discussion 554–555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kratimenos GP, Thomas DG. The role of image-directed biopsy in the diagnosis and management of brainstem lesions. Br J Neurosurg 1993; 7 (02) 155-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lunsford LD, Martinez AJ. Stereotactic exploration of the brain in the era of computed tomography. Surg Neurol 1984; 22 (03) 222-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Field M, Witham TF, Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD. Comprehensive assessment of hemorrhage risks and outcomes after stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosurg 2001; 94 (04) 545-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hall WA. The safety and efficacy of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions. Cancer 1998; 82 (09) 1749-1755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kulkarni AV, Guha A, Lozano A, Bernstein M. Incidence of silent hemorrhage and delayed deterioration after stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosurg 1998; 89 (01) 31-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McGirt MJ, Woodworth GF, Coon AL. , et al. Independent predictors of morbidity after image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk assessment of 270 cases. J Neurosurg 2005; 102 (05) 897-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nishihara M, Sasayama T, Kudo H, Kohmura E. Morbidity of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions. Kobe J Med Sci 2011; 56 (04) E148-E153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yu X, Liu Z, Tian Z. , et al. Stereotactic biopsy for intracranial space-occupying lesions: clinical analysis of 550 cases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2000; 75 (2-3): 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Andrews RJ, Bringas JR. A review of brain retraction and recommendations for minimizing intraoperative brain injury. Neurosurgery 1993; 33 (06) 1052-1063 ; discussion 1063–1064
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zhong J, Dujovny M, Perlin AR, Perez-Arjona E, Park HK, Diaz FG. Brain retraction injury. Neurol Res 2003; 25 (08) 831-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Burns JD, Cadigan RO, Russell JA. Evaluation of brain biopsy in the diagnosis of severe neurologic disease of unknown etiology. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2009; 111 (03) 235-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hawasli AH, Buckley RT, Gao F. , et al. Biopsy of the superficial cortex: predictors of effectiveness and outcomes. Neurosurgery 2013; 73 (02) 224-231 ; discussion 231–232; quiz 232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schuette AJ, Taub JS, Hadjipanayis CG, Olson JJ. Open biopsy in patients with acute progressive neurologic decline and absence of mass lesion. Neurology 2010; 75 (05) 419-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Barlas O. A simple stereotactic retractor for use with the Leksell system. Neurosurgery 1994; 34 (02) 380-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kelly PJ. Future perspectives in stereotactic neurosurgery: stereotactic microsurgical removal of deep brain tumors. J Neurosurg Sci 1989; 33 (01) 149-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kelly PJ, Goerss SJ, Kall BA. The stereotaxic retractor in computer-assisted stereotaxic microsurgery. Technical note. J Neurosurg 1988; 69 (02) 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moshel YA, Link MJ, Kelly PJ. Stereotactic volumetric resection of thalamic pilocytic astrocytomas. Neurosurgery 2007; 61 (01) 66-75 ; discussion 75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Otsuki T, Jokura H, Yoshimoto T. Stereotactic guiding tube for open-system endoscopy: a new approach for the stereotactic endoscopic resection of intra-axial brain tumors. Neurosurgery 1990; 27 (02) 326-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ross DA. A simple stereotactic retractor for use with the Leksell stereotactic system. Neurosurgery 1993; 32 (03) 475-476 ; discussion 476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Eliyas JK, Glynn R, Kulwin CG. , et al. Minimally invasive transsulcal resection of intraventricular and periventricular lesions through a tubular retractor system: multicentric experience and results. World Neurosurg 2016; 90: 556-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Labib MA, Shah M, Kassam AB. , et al. The safety and feasibility of image-guided BrainPath-mediated transsulcul hematoma evacuation: a multicenter study. Neurosurgery 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ding D, Starke RM, Crowley RW, Liu KC. Endoport-assisted microsurgical resection of cerebral cavernous malformations. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (06) 1025-1029
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Przybylowski CJ, Ding D, Starke RM, Webster Crowley R, Liu KC. Endoport-assisted surgery for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (11) 1727-1732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chen CJ, Caruso J, Starke RM. , et al. Endoport-assisted microsurgical treatment of a ruptured periventricular aneurysm. Case Rep Neurol Med 2016; 2016: 8654262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar