Contralateral Transmaxillary and Ipsilateral Transpterygoid Approaches: A Balanced Evaluation for Enhanced Endoscopic Petrosectomy Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional approaches to addressing the intricate regions of the petrous apex (PA) and petroclival region have predominantly relied on transtemporal and middle fossa transpetrosal strategies. The endoscopic endonasal approach, bolstered by advancements in endoscopic techniques, has proven effective in reaching lesions within this segment of the skull base. While the medial petrous apex presents lesser challenges, accessing the posterior and superior PA segments requires lateral mobilization of the paraclival segment of the internal carotid artery (ICA), a maneuver elevating the risk of arterial injury. The ipsilateral transpterygoid (ITP) approach is commonly utilized; however, while previous studies have advocated for the use of a contralateral transmaxillary (CTM. Corridor to minimize ICA mobilization, direct qualitative and quantitative anatomical comparisons between the two approaches remain limited. This study aims to precisely delineate the boundaries of endoscopic petrosectomy, comparing the visualization, angle of attack, reach and safety of the ITP and CTM approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".