Preservation of Olfactory Function following Endoscopic Resection of Select Malignancies of the Nasal Vault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservation of olfactory function during anterior skull base surgery has been previously described. However, its feasibility during oncological resection remains undefined. The aim of this study was to clarify the feasibility of preserving olfactory function in select patients undergoing oncological anterior skull base resection via endonasal endoscopic approach. This is a retrospective case series study. Postoperatively, all patients underwent a standardized smell identification test (Sensonics Inc., Haddon, NJ, USA). From January 2002 to December 2009, we attempted to preserve olfactory function in 9 patients who required an endoscopic resection involving the anterior skull base for treatment of various malignancies presenting unilateral extension. These included: esthesioneuroblastoma (n = 6), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 1), adenocarcinoma (n = 1) and hemangiopericytoma (n = 1). In 7 patients, resection included a unilateral endoscopic craniectomy with preservation of the contralateral middle and superior turbinates. Two patients underwent resection of the entire lateral nasal wall and the olfactory epithelium as the superior limit of tumor resection. Six patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. Postoperatively, olfaction was documented in 7 patients (3 normosmic, 4 microsmic). All patients are free of recurrence at the original site at a mean follow-up period of 55.7 months (range 21–101 months). One patient with an esthesioneuroblastoma developed a cervical lymph node recurrence four years after surgery. In selected cases, it is feasible to preserve olfactory function without apparent compromise of oncological outcomes. The success rate depends largely on the extent of the resection, which, in turn, is dictated, by the extent of the tumor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".