Defining the limits and indications of the Draf III endoscopic approach to the lateral frontal sinus and maximizing visualization and maneuverability: a cadaveric and radiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The DRAF III procedure has been used for access to the lateralmost part of the frontal sinus. We sought to identify anatomical and radiological measurements as well as modifications that predict the lateral limits of visualization and surgical access after this procedure. METHODS: Seven cadaver heads were imaged with computed tomography scan. The distance from midline to the medial orbital wall (MOWD), midline to the lateral end of the frontal sinus (MLD), the sum of MLDs (SMLD), interorbital distance (IOD) and the shortest anteroposterior distance of the frontal recess (APD) were utilized. The ratios MLD/MOWD, and SMLD/IOD were calculated. The same distances were measured on 41 CT scans. Orbital transposition (OT) and partial resection of the piriform aperture (PAR) were performed; the visualization and reach were assessed. The angle of insertion was measured before and after the modifications. RESULTS: Only the ratio MLD/MOWD was consistently predictive of access to the lateral, superior and posterior wall of the frontal sinus. Following the modifications, a visualization of 100% laterally was achieved with the 30- and 45 degree endoscopes and every lateral recess could be reached with the 70 degree suction. A mean increase of the angle of insertion of 25.3 and 59.6% was recorded after OT and PAR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IOD rather than APD defines the limits of the Draf III approach to the lateral frontal sinus and MLD/MOWD ratio can serve as a useful preoperative tool. Along to the already described OT, PAR increases visualization and reach of the lateral frontal sinus.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".