More than 100 years after the first description by Kanavel of a transoral–transpharyngeal approach to remove a bullet impacted between the atlas and the clivus , the transoral approach (TOA) still represents the ‘gold standard’ for surgical treatment of a variety of conditions resulting in anterior craniocervical compression and myelopathy [2, 3]. Nevertheless, some concerns—such as the need for a temporary tracheostomy and a postoperative nasogastric tube, and the increased risk of infection resulting from possible bacterial contamination and nasopharyngeal incompetence [4–6]—led to the introduction of the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) by Kassam et al.  in 2005. Although this approach, which was conceived to overcome those surgical complications, soon gained wide attention, its clear predominance over the TOA in the treatment of craniovertebral junction (CVJ) pathologies is still a matter of debate . In recent years, several papers have reported anatomical studies and surgical experience with the EEA, targeting different areas of the midline skull base, from the olfactory groove to the CVJ [8–19]. Starting from these preliminary experiences, further anatomical studies have defined the theoretical (radiological) and practical (surgical) craniocaudal limits of the endonasal route [20–25]. Our group has done the same for the TOA [26, 27] and compared the reliability of the radiological and surgical lines of the two different approaches. Very recently, a cadaver study, with the aid of neuronavigation, tried to define the upper and lower limits of the endoscopic TOA .