Advertisement

Safe handling of veins in the pineal region—a mixed method study

  • Markus E. Krogager
  • Asgeir S. Jakola
  • Lars Poulsgaard
  • William Couldwell
  • Tiit Mathiesen
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Surgical experience in pineal surgery is largely confined to a few experienced surgeons and may be lost when they stop their practice. The objective of this study is to systematically preserve and analyze valuable practical knowledge of pineal region surgical venous anatomy. A survey was constructed to obtain experienced surgeons’ perception of estimated risks and individual experience following occlusion of veins during pineal surgery. Data were qualitative and analyzed with a mixed methods approach. Of the 126 invited neurosurgeons, 40 submitted completed questionnaires. General agreement existed of which veins were associated with high and low risks following occlusion. The risk of death was estimated to be high with sacrifice of the vein of Galen (83%), both internal cerebral veins (69%) and the basal veins (58%). The risk of death was estimated to be lower with the sacrifice of both superior vermian veins (13%) and one internal occipital vein (10%). Importantly, a sub-group of experienced surgeons reported substantial risk of death and consequences with the sacrifice of cerebellar bridging veins (8–13%). Our findings provide a coherent picture of surgical risk with venous sacrifice, which can inform the surgical community of systematically gathered views from aggregated surgeries of a very large cohort of patients. Extensive presurgical radiological workup and anatomical studies seemed to correlate more cautious risk estimations. Our findings increase available knowledge of risks of venous complications.

Keywords

Cysts Fossa Occlusion Pineal Surgery Veins 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the following neurosurgeons, who contributed with indispensable surgical knowledge and experience to the survey that formed the basis of this paper:

– Jannick Brennum, MD, Chairman of the Neurocenter, Rigshospitalet

– Lars Bøgeskov, MD, Department of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet

– Thomas Santarius, MD PhD, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (Addenbrooke’s)

– Marc Sindou, MD and Dumot Chloé MSc, University of Lyon

– Evandro de Oliveira, MD PhD, Adjunct Professor of Neurological Surgery at the Mayo Clinic

– Ulrich Sure, MD, Professor at University Hospital of Essen

– M. Necmettin Pamir, MD, Professor, President at Acibadem University

– Luca Regli MD, Professor and Chairman of University Hospital of Zurich

– Andreas Raabe MD, Professor, Chairman of Neurosurgery at Bern University Hospital

– Henry W. S. Schroeder, MD PhD, Dept. of Neurosurgery at the University Medicine Greifswald

– Fady T. Charbel MD, Professor and Chief at University of Illinois Hospital

– Marcos Soares Tatagiba, MD, Professor and Chief at University of Tübingen

– Veit Rohde, MD, Professor and Chief at University Medical Center Göttingen

– Jafri Malin Abdullah, MD, Professor and Chief at University of Sciences Malaysia, Department of NS

– Basant Misra, MD, Professor and Head of the Department of NS at Hinduja National Hospital

– Ioan Stefan Florian, MD PhD, Professor of the Department of NS at University of Cluj-Napoca

– Peter Nakaji, MD, Department of Neurosurgery at Barrow Neurological Institute

– Vladimir Benes, MD PhD, Professor and Chairman of the Department of NS at University Hospital Prague

– Nejat Akalan, MD PhD, Professor of the Department of Neurosurgery at Hacettepe University

– Kazuhiro Hongo, MD, Professor of the Department of Neurosurgery at Shinshu University

– Helmut Bertalanffy, MD, Professor and Director for Neurosurgery, International Neuroscience Institute Hannover

– Takanori Fukushima, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery at Duke University

– Juha Hernesemi, MD PhD, Professor emeritus in Neurosurgery at University of Helsinki

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

N/A/Irrelevant

Informed consent

No patients are directly involved. All questioned surgeons consented.

Supplementary material

10143_2019_1189_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.3 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 3354 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Baylor AL (2001) A U-shape model for the development of intuition by level of expertise. New Ideas Psychol 19:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd O, Jackson N (2005) Clinical review: how is risk defined in high-risk surgical patient management? Crit Care 9:390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaynes P (2003) Microsurgical anatomy of the great cerebral vein of Galen and its tributaries. J Neurosurg 99:1028–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Culyer A, Rawlings M (2012) Evidence and quality, practicalities and judgements: some experience from NICE. Healtcare Q 15:66–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duvernoy HM, Parratte B, Tatu L, Vuillier F (2000) The human pineal gland: relationships with surrounding structures and blood supply. Neurol Res 22:747–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giordano M, Lüdemann WO, Stieglitz L, Gerganov VM, Columbano L, Samii A, Samii M (2011) Identification of venous variants in the pineal region with three-dimensional preoperative magnetic resonance imaging navigation in patients harbouring tumors in this area: significance for surgical approach to the lesion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 113:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giordano M, Wrede KH, Stieglitz LH, Samii M, Lüdemann WO (2007) Identification of venous variants in the pineal region with 3D preoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging navigation. J Neurosurg 106:1006–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haack, S (2005) Defending science—within reason: between scientism and cynicism. Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hermann EJ, Petrakakis I, Polemikos M, Raab P, Cinibulak ZM, Krauss JK (2015) Electromagnetic navigation-guided surgery in the semi-sitting position for posterior fossa tumors: a safety and feasibility study. Acta Neurochir 157:1229–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hernesiemi J, Romani R, Albayrak BS, Letho H, Dashti R, Ramsey C III, Karatas A, Cardia A, Navratil O, Piippo A, Fujiki M, Toninelli S, Niemelä M (2008) Microsurgical management of pineal regions lesions: personal experience with 119 patients. Surg Neurol 70:576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inoue A, Ohnishi T, Kohno S, Ohtsuka Y, Nakamura Y, Mizuno Y, Kitazawa R, Ohue S (2015) Two cases of pineal-region meningiomas derived from arachnoid membrane over the vein of Galen without dural attachment. World J Surg Oncol 13:226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jakola AS, Bartek J Jr, Mathiesen T (2013) Venous complications in supracerebellar infratentorial approach. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:477–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawashima M, Rhoton AL Jr, Matsushima T (2002) Comparison of posterior approaches to the posterior incisural space: microsurgical anatomy and proposal of a new method, the occipital bi-transtentorial/falcine approach. Neurosurgery 51:1220–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilic T, Ozduman K, Cavdar S, Özek M, Pamir MN (2005) The galenic venous system: surgical anatomy and its angiographic and magnetic resonance venographic correlations. Eur J Radiol 56:212–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kodera T, Bozinov O, Sürücü O, Ulrich NH, Burkhardt JK, Bertalanffy H (2011) Neurosurgical venous considerations for tumors of the pineal region resected using infratentorial supracerebellar approach. J Clin Neurosci 18:1481–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kulwin C, Matsushima K, Malekpour M, Cohen-Gadol AA (2016) Lateral supracerebellar infratentorial approach for microsurgical resection of large midline pineal region tumors: techniques to expand the operative corridor. J Neurosurg 124:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Little KM, Freidman AH, Fukushima T (2001) Surgical approaches to pineal tumors. J Neuro-Oncol 54:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lopez-Gonzalez MA, Dolan E (2016) Endodermal cyst in pineal region: rare location. Surg Neurol Int 7(Supplement 11):279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Magill ST, Theodosopoulos PV, Tward AD, Cheung SW, McDermott MW (2017) Meningiomas of the cerebellopontine angle. In: Couldwell W (ed) Skull Base Surgery of the Posterior Fossa. Springer pp 103-113.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matsuo S, Baydin S, Güngör A, Miki K, Komune N, Kurogi R, Iihara K, Rhoton AL Jr (2017) Midline and off-midline infratentorial supracerebellar approaches to the pineal gland. J Neurosurg 126:1984–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsushima T, Rhoton AL Jr, de Oliveira E, Peace D (1983) Microsurgical anatomy of the veins of the posterior fossa. J Neurosurg 59:63–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rawlings M (2008) De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet (British edition) 372:2152–2161Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rawlings M (2014) Evidence, values and decision making. Int J Technol Assesment Health Care 30:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Br Med J (London) 312:71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Solomou AG (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of pineal tumors and drop metastases: a review approach. Rare Tumors 9:6715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tamaki N, Fujiwara K, Matsumoto S, Takeda H (1973) Veins draining the pineal body. An anatomical and neuroradiological study of “pineal veins”. J Neurosurg 39:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tien RD, Barkovich AJ, Edwards MSB (1990) MR imaging of pineal tumors. Am J Neuroradiol 11:557–565Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ueyama T, Al-Mefty O, Tamaki N (1998) Bridging veins on the tentorial surface of the cerebellum: a microsurgical anatomic study and operative considerations. Neurosurgery 43:1137–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Watanabe T, Igarashi T, Fukushima T, Yoshino A, Katayama Y (2013) Anatomical variation of superior petrosal vein and its management during surgery for cerebellopontine angle meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:1871–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yamamoto I (2001) Pineal region tumor: surgical anatomy and approach. J Neuro-Oncol 54:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yamamoto I, Kageyama N (1980) Microsurgical anatomy of the pineal region. J Neurosurg 53:205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang A, Folzenlogen Z, Youssef AS (2018) Minimally invasive endoscopic-assisted approaches to the posterior fossa. J Neurosurg Sci 62:658–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoshino M, Nakatomi H, Kin T, Saito T, Shono N, Nomura S, Nakagawa D, Takayanagi S, Imai H, Oyama H, Saito N (2017) Usefulness of high-resolution 3D multifusion medical imaging for preoperative planning in patients with posterior fossa hemangioblastoma: technical note. J Neurosurg 127:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryRigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Neuroscience and PhysiologySahlgrenska AcademyGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgerySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  5. 5.IKMUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Clinical NeuroscienceKarolinska InstituteSolnaSweden

Personalised recommendations