Surgical anatomy and technical nuances of the endoscopic endonasal approach to the anterior cranial fossa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEA) to the skull base have significantly impacted the management of lesions located in the cranial base. Specifically, lesions arising from the anterior cranial fossa, such as pituitary macroadenomas, craniopharyngiomas meningiomas and craniofacial malignancies have benefited from the development of such approaches. Understanding of the anatomy of the anterior fossa is of utmost importance for the successful selection of the approach and application of surgical techniques in EEA. In the current manuscript, we review the most relevant points of surgical anatomy and nuances of the surgical technique of EEA to the anterior fossa. Anatomical landmarks for the transtuberculum transplanum and transcribriform approaches are discussed and a step-by-step description for those approaches is presented. We reinforce that safe and effective application of such techniques follow the same principles of other skull base surgery techniques: mastering of surgical anatomy, adequate case selection, correct instrumentation and surgical experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".