MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023072317 · doi:10.3171/foc.2008.25.12.e7

Surgery for clival lesions: open resection versus the expanded endoscopic endonasal approach

2008· article· en· W2023072317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryEndoscopic endonasal surgeryClivusEndoscopyComplicationLesionSkull

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Clival lesions pose significant challenges with regard to their surgical management. The expanded endoscopic endonasal (EEE) approach is a promising minimally invasive technique for lesions of the central skull base. The authors' aim in the current paper was to discuss the surgical treatment of clival lesions and to present the technical details, indications, and limitations of the EEE approach. Data from a recent endoscopically treated group will be compared with findings in a previous cohort of patients treated via classic open anterior and lateral approaches. METHODS: Since June 2005, 17 patients with clival lesions underwent surgery via the EEE approach. Suitable candidates were chosen according to lesion characteristics, clinical parameters, and surgical goals. Neurological outcomes, Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, the extent of lesion resection, and complications were evaluated among these patients. Eighteen percent of the patients in the endoscopic group presented with recurrent disease. Another series of 43 patients, who had undergone resection of clival lesions via an anterior (rhinotomy, maxillectomy, microscopic transsphenoidal surgery, or transoral surgery) or lateral (pterional, frontoorbitozygomatic, or combined suprainfratentorial retrosigmoid) approach, was similarly reviewed. Twenty-three of these patients (53%) presented with recurrent disease and thus had undergone prior surgery. RESULTS: Following the EEE approach, 11 (79%) of 14 patients who had presented with neurological symptoms experienced improvement, and gross-total resection was achieved in 59% of the patients and subtotal removal in 41%. Complications included CSF leakage (24%), tension pneumocephalus (6%), and intracranial hematoma (6%). The patient with the latter complication was the only one who experienced permanent neurological worsening. In the open resection group, neurological worsening occurred in 33% of the patients (14 of 43). Total and grosstotal removals were achieved in 84% of patients and subtotal removal in 14%. CONCLUSIONS: The EEE approach has been shown to be a safe and effective technique for the resection of clival lesions with limited lateral extension. The choice of surgical approach must be tailored according to both patient and tumor characteristics. Although the 2 patient series featured in this paper are not comparable-because of a selection bias-higher rates of neurological morbidity and total and gross-total resections were observed in the open resection group. Given the long survival of some patients, the EEE approach should be favored whenever reasonable.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it