A cadaveric study in endoscopic 3D visualization of posterior fossa neurovascular complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of 3D endoscopy for posterior fossa surgery gradually adopted. In this study we compare the 3D to classic 2D endoscopy in evaluating neurovascular complexes in posterior fossa. Methods: Twenty retrosigmoid craniotomies, with a maximal diameter of 2cm were performed under neuronavigation on 10 fresh cadaveric heads. The posterior fossa dura matter was opened with a C-shaped incision and the base of the dural flap was placed over the sigmoid sinus. We used 3D and 2D endoscopes, with 0 and 45 degree angulations, connected to high definition camera lenses for optimal visualization of posterior fossa structures. Results: The superior, middle and inferior neurovascular complexes of the cerebellopontine angle were better visualized with 3D comparing to 2D endoscope. A detailed view of the porus trigeminous and structures associated with the tentorial incisura was also attained with 3D endoscopy. Conclusion: The high quality and resolution obtained by 3D endoscopy makes it a potentially valuable surgical and teaching tool in the armamentarium for endoscopic posterior fossa surgery. The stereoscopic view of the critical neurovascular structures of the posterior fossa, offered by 3D images, allows for a more detailed dissection in the difficult area of the cerebellopontine angle.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".