The Posterior Transpetrosal Approach in a Case of Large Retrochiasmatic Craniopharyngioma: Operative Video and Technical Nuances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To discuss the use of the posterior petrosal approach for the resection of a retrochiasmatic craniopharyngioma. Design Operative video. Results In this case video, the authors discuss the surgical management of a large craniopharyngioma, presenting with mass effect on the third ventricle and optic apparatus. A first surgical stage, through an endoscopic endonasal transtubercular approach, allowed satisfactory decompression of the optic chiasma and nerves in preparation for adjuvant therapy. However, accelerated growth of the tumor, with renewed visual deficits and mass effect on the hypothalamus and third ventricle, warranted a supplementary resection. A posterior transpetrosal1 2 (also called “retrolabyrinthine transtentorial”) was performed to obtain a better exposure of the tumor and the surrounding anatomy (floor and walls of the third ventricle, perforating vessels, optic nerves, etc.)3. Nuances of technique and surgical pearls related to the posterior transpetrosal are discussed and illustrated in this operative video, including the posterior mobilization of the transverse–sigmoid sinuses junction, preservation of the venous anatomy during the tentorial incision, identification and preservation of the floor of the third ventricle during tumor resection, and a careful multilayer closure. Conclusion Retrochiasmatic craniopharyngiomas are difficult to reach tumors that often require skull base approaches, either endoscopic endonasal or transcranial. The posterior transpetrosal approach is an important part of the surgical armamentarium to safely resect these complex tumors. The link to the video can be found at: https://youtu.be/2MyGLJ_v1kI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".