Surgical Nuances and Predictors of Requirement for Suprameatal Tubercle Removal in Microvascular Decompression for Trigeminal Neuralgia

Abstract

Objective Suprameatal tubercle (SMT), a bony prominence located above the internal acoustic meatus, is reported to impede the microscopic view during microvascular decompression (MVD) for trigeminal neuralgia (TN). For an enlarged SMT, removal of the SMT may be required in addition to the routine MVD to precisely localize the offending vessels. The objective of this study is to investigate the predictive factors influencing the requirement of SMT removal during trigeminal MVD.

Methods We retrospectively reviewed 197 patients who underwent MVD for TN, and analyzed the correlation of the SMT height and other clinicosurgical data with the necessity to remove the SMT during MVD. The parameters evaluated in the statistical analyses included maximum SMT height, patient's clinical characteristics, surgical data including the type and number of offending vessels, and surgical outcomes.

Results SMT removal was required for 20 patients among a total of enrolled 197 patients. In the univariate analysis, maximum SMT height, patient's age, and number (≥ 2) of offending vessels were associated with the requirement for SMT removal. Multivariate analysis with binary logistic regression revealed that the maximum SMT height and number (≥ 2) of offending vessels were significant factors influencing the necessity for SMT removal. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that an SMT height ≥ 4.8 mm was the optimal cutoff value for predicting the need for SMT removal.

Conclusion Large SMTs and the presence of multiple offending vessels are helpful in predicting the technical difficulty of trigeminal MVD associated with the necessity of SMT removal.

Keywords

suprameatal tubercle - trigeminal neuralgia - microvascular decompression - petrous bone - offending vessels

Publication History

Received: 21 July 2023

Accepted: 18 October 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
25 October 2023

Article published online:
28 November 2023

• References

• 1 Toda H, Goto M, Iwasaki K. Patterns and variations in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2015; 55 (05) 432-441
• 2 Seoane E, Rhoton Jr AL. Suprameatal extension of the retrosigmoid approach: microsurgical anatomy. Neurosurgery 1999; 44 (03) 553-560
• 3 Agarwal N, Kumar A, Singh P, Chandra PS, Kale SS. Suprameatal extension of retrosigmoid approach in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia with petrous endostosis: case report and literature review. Neurol India 2022; 70 (03) 1240-1243
• 4 Inoue T, Goto Y, Prasetya M, Fukushima T. Resection of the suprameatal tubercle in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2020; 162 (05) 1089-1094
• 5 Moreira-Holguin JC, Revuelta-Gutierrez R, Monroy-Sosa A, Almeida-Navarro S. Suprameatal extension of retrosigmoid approach for microvascular decompression of trigeminal nerve: case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2015; 15: 13-16
• 6 Oiwa Y, Hirohata Y, Okumura H. et al. [Bone drilling in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia: high morphological variety of the petrous bone]. Neurol Surg 2013; 41 (07) 601-607
• 7 Peris-Celda M, Perry A, Carlstrom LP, Graffeo CS, Link MJ. Intraoperative management of an enlarged suprameatal tubercle during microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve, surgical and anatomical description: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019; 17 (06) E247
• 8 Rennert RC, Brandel MG, Stephens ML, Rodriguez A, Morris TW, Day JD. Surgical relevance of the suprameatal tubercle during superior petrosal vein-sparing trigeminal nerve microvascular decompression. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2021; 20 (06) E410-E416
• 9 Shenouda EF, Coakham HB. Management of petrous endostosis in posterior fossa procedures for trigeminal neuralgia. Neurosurgery 2007; 60 (2, suppl 1): ONS63-ONS69 , discussion ONS69
• 10 Yang K, Shao M, Turpin J, Dehdashti AR. Suprameatal tubercle drilling during microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2022; 83 (S01): S1-S270
• 11 Ebner FH, Koerbel A, Roser F, Hirt B, Tatagiba M. Microsurgical and endoscopic anatomy of the retrosigmoid intradural suprameatal approach to lesions extending from the posterior fossa to the central skull base. Skull Base 2009; 19 (05) 319-323
• 12 Ebner FH, Koerbel A, Kirschniak A, Roser F, Kaminsky J, Tatagiba M. Endoscope-assisted retrosigmoid intradural suprameatal approach to the middle fossa: anatomical and surgical considerations. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33 (01) 109-113
• 13 Acerbi F, Broggi M, Gaini SM, Tschabitscher M. Microsurgical endoscopic-assisted retrosigmoid intradural suprameatal approach: anatomical considerations. J Neurosurg Sci 2010; 54 (02) 55-63
• 14 Toda H, Iwasaki K, Yoshimoto N. et al. Bridging veins and veins of the brainstem in microvascular decompression surgery for trigeminal neuralgia and hemifacial spasm. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 45 (01) E2
• 15 Ibrahim B, Muhsen BA, Najera E, Borghei-Razavi H, Adada B. Case report of unusual cause of trigeminal neuralgia: trigeminal neuralgia secondary to enlarged suprameatal tubercle. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2021; 66: 102308
• 16 Chanda A, Nanda A. Retrosigmoid intradural suprameatal approach: advantages and disadvantages from an anatomical perspective. Neurosurgery 2006; 59 (1, suppl 1): ONS1-ONS6 , discussion ONS1–ONS6
• 17 Honey CM, Kaufmann AM. Trigeminal neuralgia due to vertebrobasilar artery compression. World Neurosurg 2018; 118: e155-e160