Surgical Nuances of Endoscopic Endonasal Resection of Craniopharyngiomas: 2-Dimensional Operative Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of the microsurgical anatomy of the sella and suprasellar space is necessary for successful selection of surgical approaches and resection of craniopharyngiomas. Endoscopic endonasal surgery provides excellent exposure of the suprasellar space and has become the approach of choice for most of those tumors. In this video, we discuss the anatomical and surgical nuances for resection of craniopharyngiomas via an endoscopic transtuberculum transplanum approach. Anatomical dissections and a clinical case are used to illustrate the technique. This is the case of a 52-yr-old woman who presented to our clinic with a history of progressive visual decline and headaches, but no hormonal deficiencies. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated the presence of a sella suprasellar solid cystic lesion suggestive of a craniopharyngioma. The lesion was mainly located anterior to the chiasm, preinfundibular and medial to the posterior-communicating artery. Considering the patient presented with no hormonal deficits, it was decided to proceed with an endoscopic extended approach for maximum tumor resection while attempting to preserve the pituitary stalk and gland and its function. The patient provided consent to undergo the procedure and for the surgical video. After a binostril approach and harvesting of vascularized flap, a large sphenoidotomy was performed, followed by a transtuberculum transplanum approach. The tumor was resected with blunt and sharp dissection with careful preservation of the branches of the superior hypophyseal and posterior-communicating arteries. Closure was performed in a multilayer fashion, with dura substitute, fascia lata, and vascularized flap. The patient had visual improvement after surgery and was discharged at postoperative day 5 with no complications. Anatomical dissection pictures © 2019 Joao Paulo Almeida, MD. Used with permission.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".