Transorbital Endoscopic Approach for Managing Challenging Frontal Sinus Lesions: Results and Operative Technique Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to describe our experience using the transorbital endoscopic approach (TEA) in the frontal sinus and the step-by-step technique used. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the charts from adult patients who underwent management of frontal sinus lesions with TEA performed from 2017 to 2022. Results: Seven patients underwent eight surgeries for frontal sinus lesions using TEA in combination with the endoscopic transnasal approach (ETA), with the majority on the left side (5/8, 62.5%). The average age was 53.9 years, with six male patients and one female patient. Gross total resection (GTR) was achieved in all cases. The most common symptoms leading to surgery were headaches or a sensation of pressure in the forehead (5/8, 62.5%), followed by a decreased sense of smell (3/8, 37.5%), diplopia (3/8, 37.5%), proptosis (2/8, 20%), periorbital cellulitis (2/8, 20%), and decreased visual acuity (1/8, 12.5%). The most common etiology in this case series was mucocele (5/8, 62.5%), followed by osteoid osteoma (2/8, 20%), and inverted papilloma (1/8, 12.5%). The length of stay in all cases was 1 day. The most common complication was mild and transitory V1 numbness, which fully recovered after 6 months (5/8, 62.5%). The average follow-up period was 24.6 months (range of 3-48 months). Conclusion: Transoral Endoscopic Approach (TEA) demonstrated being a valuable complement to ETA approaches for treating frontal sinus lesions, especially in challenging regions. The transorbital approach is feasible and can safely achieve GTR for a variety of pathologies while effectively controlling symptoms and resulting in a 1-day hospital stay.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".