Endoscopic‐assisted en‐bloc pterygomaxillectomy: Identifying an efficient and safe location for the pterygoid osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For aggressive maxillary sinus and pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) tumors, an en-bloc pterygomaxillectomy may be indicated. METHODS: Five head specimens were used to study the feasibility of an en-bloc pterygomaxillectomy. Eighty-five non-pathological CT scans were used to compare the superior edge of the inferior turbinate (IT) and the middle turbinate tail (MT) as landmarks for the pterygoid osteotomy. RESULTS: Through a combined sublabial-subperiosteal incision and transoral route, a mid-sagittal osteotomy through the hard palate and an axial osteotomy below the infraorbital foramen were performed. For the endoscopic pterygoid osteotomy, an infra-vidian transpterygoid approach was performed, subsequently removing the pterygomaxillectomy en-bloc. As landmarks, the osteotomies at the level of the MT tail and IT resected the pterygoid plates completely, but the IT osteotomy was further away from the vidian canal (7.5 vs. 6 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic-assisted en-bloc pterygomaxillectomy is feasible. The IT landmark is safe and ensures complete resection of the pterygoid plates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".