Search

Recent studies (Alaou-Ismaili et al. 2020; Kilic et al. Eur J Radiol 56:212–219, 2005) among experienced sub-specialized neurosurgeons described divergent perceptions of surgical risk for venous sacrifice in posterior fossa surgery. Three galenic veins stood out as controversial in venous risk assessment and underexplored in the literature: the internal occipital vein (IOV), the precentral cerebellar vein (PCV), and the superior vermian vein (SVV). We have conducted a narrative review based on a systematic literature search to analyze terminology and anatomic descriptions and to suggest a coherent synthesis of published data on these veins. A systematic PubMed literature search was carried out using the keywords: “posterior fossa,” “venous anatomy,” and “radiology.” Relevant radiological, microsurgical, and anatomical articles were selected if they described the anatomy of the three veins. Anatomical descriptions were analyzed with hermeneutic methodology alongside the articles’ radiological and anatomical dissection pictures. New illustrations were created to depict the synthesized image of the venous anatomy. A total of 13 articles described the anatomy and terminology of the relevant veins. The descriptions of the IOV included smaller non-occipital vessels that confused the identification of the vessel. IOV is analyzed to be the vein draining the primary visual cortex, which drains into the vein of Galen (VG). The PCV and SVV enter the VG from below and are fused in almost half of all studied patients, creating a third vessel by the name of the superior cerebellar vein. A conscientious narrative review and hermeneutic analysis produced a synthesized, uniform picture of terminology and anatomy. Consensus on anatomical descriptions and definitions are indispensable for validation of anatomy, research into anatomical variation, for surgical planning and documentation.

The study aims to systematize neurosurgeons' practical knowledge of venous sacrifice as applied to the posterior fossa region and to analyze the collected data to present and preserve relevant experience and expert knowledge for current and future practicing neurosurgeons. The venous structures assessed were the superior petrosal vein (SPV), sigmoid sinus (SS), and the tentorial veins (TV). The survey is constructed to obtain surgeons' idea of assessed risk when sacrificing specific venous structures during posterior fossa surgery. They were asked how they prep for surgery, number of operations conducted, and their basis of knowledge. Collected data were mainly qualitative and analyzed with a mixed-method approach. A mean absolute deviation was calculated measuring rate of disagreement for a given substructure. Consensus existed among the participating surgeons that sacrificing the SPV and the TV was considered safe. Although, the risk of death when occluding major structures like the main trunk of the SPV, one of the SS' and or a total occlusion of all TV yielded high risk of death. The risk of infarction was often too apparent to discredit even with low risk of death among an experienced class of surgeons. Our findings provide an overview of surgical risk associated with venous sacrifice. This will minimize cases where indispensable practical knowledge on safe handling veins in the cerebellopontine angle is either to be lost or taught among few when the neurosurgeons retire. This will lower the disagreement regarding risks and increase the quality of surgical decision-making.