Quantitative Comparison of Endoscopic Approaches to the Paramedian Skull Base: A Preclinical Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The paramedian skull base has been considered a challenging region to approach surgically, especially for the management of extradural lesions, with significant risks for the neurovascular structures that run in that region. Recently, some authors have underlined the need to add anterior approaches that are characterized by a more lateral entry point (e.g., the contralateral transmaxillary approach), as compared to transnasal approaches, if the target in the skull base is paramedian. Objectives: A quantitative anatomical study, using a dedicated neuronavigation system that defines each surgical approach, was performed: the aim was to investigate ipsilateral endoscopic transnasal EEA, extended contralateral EEA, and endoscopic contralateral transmaxillary CTM (with its variations) features in the controlled, preclinical setting of the anatomy laboratory of the Catholic University School of Medicine (SURGEM). Methods: Three adult fresh-frozen cadaver heads (six sides) were dissected. A unilateral and contralateral expanded endonasal approach (eEEA) and a contralateral transmaxillary approach (CTM) were performed so as to expose the three main regions of the paramedian skull base: the parasellar region, the petrous apex, and the hypoglossal region. A quantitative comparison of the surgical pyramids described by each approach was obtained for each region by means of GtxEyesII-ApproachViewer, using two different modalities of quantification: crossing modality, which represents maximum reachable deep surface, moving the pointer freely, aiming to execute the largest movement possible to delimitate each structure, and non-crossing modality, which indicates the surgical pyramid with the highest surgical manoeuvrability, keeping the passive probe pointer always perpendicular to the target, describing circles and cylinders to delimit the structures. The quantification procedure was repeated six times for each approach. Results: Analyzing the results regarding the parasellar region, the EEA contralateral crossing and CTM crossing approach offered a statistically significant wider exposure than the non-crossing approaches, respectively ( p = 0.028) and ( p = 0.0001). For the petrous apex region, statistical significance was reached only for the ipsilateral ( p = 0.021) and contralateral ( p = 0.025) EEA and for the CTM after inferior turbinectomy ( p = 0.00003), while it was not confirmed for the CTM after middle turbinectomy ( p > 0.05). The manipulation of the neurovascular structures was required when EEAs were used. Analyzing the hypoglossal region, the CTM and the ipsilateral EEA were shown to grant a similar exposure in the crossing modality. The addition of an inferior turbinectomy allowed for significantly widening the exposure of the petrous apex and hypoglossal region both for crossing and non-crossing modalities. Conclusion: The EEA provides a straightforward surgical route, requiring the surgeon to circumvent the neurovascular structures. On the other hand, the CTM approach minimizes the need for complex and risky endoscopic maneuvers, offering greater exposure to the paramedian skull base for the management of extradural lesions. Publication History Article published online: 07 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».