Position of Retrosigmoid Craniotomy in Hearing Preservation Surgery for Vestibular Schwannoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical access to the internal auditory canal (IAC) fundus is a crucial aspect of the retrosigmoid approach for hearing preservation surgery in vestibular schwannoma. An appropriate positioning of the retrosigmoid craniotomy is necessary to obtain an adequate surgical corridor for full fundus exposure and labyrinth preservation. OBJECTIVE: To describe how the position of the posterior edge of the access related to the probability of exposing the fundus and to propose novel criteria for positioning the retrosigmoid craniotomy. METHODS: Data on fundus exposure were retrospectively collected in 33 consecutive cases of sporadic vestibular schwannoma, submitted to the retrosigmoid craniotomy in a park-bench position. Patients' computed tomography images were analyzed to calculate the position of the posterior edge of the craniotomy with reference to the fundus-labyrinth line (FLL), which starts at the fundus and, running just posterior to the labyrinth, reaches the occipital squama. A logistic regression model was used to correlate the craniotomy position with the probability of exposing the fundus. RESULTS: The fundus exposure rate was significantly higher (P = .005) for craniotomies located posteromedially to the FLL. In a logistic regression model, the probability of exposing the fundus reached 95% for craniotomies located 11.3 mm posteromedially to the FLL. CONCLUSION: This study showed a strong association between craniotomy position and fundus exposure rate. Our findings suggest that the posteromedial edge of the retrosigmoid craniotomy should lie approximately 11 mm posteromedially to FLL to maximize the chances of exposing the fundus.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".