MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407250047 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1803237

Spheno-orbital Meningiomas: Case Series and Surgical Outcomes following Frontotemporal-Orbitozygomatic Craniotomy

2025· article· en· W4407250047 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullah Ishaque, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniotomyMedicineSeries (stratigraphy)MeningiomaSurgeryGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Spheno-orbital meningiomas (SOM) pose significant surgical challenges due to their anatomical relationship with the orbit and critical neurovascular structures. Clinically, patients often present with visual symptoms, including proptosis and blurred vision, as well as generalized symptoms such as headaches or seizures secondary to mass effect and edema. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients with SOMs managed with a frontotemporal-orbitozygomatic (FTOZ) skull base craniotomy, providing insights into outcomes and follow-up results. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent an FTOZ performed by a single skull base neurosurgeon with over 30 years of experience. Patients were included if they had a meningioma on final pathological diagnosis. SOMs were defined based on the location of the tumor on the sphenoid bone and the orbit, including evidence of hyperostosis on CT scans. Patients’ demographic data, pathological diagnosis, operative notes, and clinical follow-up data were recorded from electronic medical records. FTOZ craniotomies were uniformly performed as previously published with an interfascial dissection technique. Results: Case review revealed 130 patients who underwent FTOZ craniotomies. Ten patients were included, eight females and two males, based on the initial chart review performed to date. The average age at the time of surgery was 54.5 ± 9.9 years, with a symptom duration of 1.6 ± 1.9 years. Fifty percent of patients had visual symptoms, and 30% had seizures and headaches. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness data were available for four patients. Two of these patients had visual deficits, and their RNFL thickness on the affected side was decreased by 29.7 and 16.3% compared to their contralateral retina. The average size of the tumors was 4.1 ± 0.8 cm in the largest dimension, and 50% of them involved the cavernous sinus. Four patients received a Simpson grade IV resection, and the remainders were between grades I-III, distributed evenly. WHO grade II atypical meningiomas were found in 50% of the patients, and all but one (due to patient preference) received postoperative radiation therapy. Radiographic tumor recurrence was noted in one patient after 4.5 years of stable disease with a WHO grade II tumor. Visual acuity improved in all patients who had deficits preoperatively. The average length of follow-up was 2.7 ± 2.2 years from the time of surgery. Conclusion: SOMs pose a formidable challenge to skull base neurosurgeons. Presently, very few studies exist that classify these tumors based on anatomy and ophthalmological assessment. Our next steps include detailed radiographical and clinical phenotyping of all SOMs managed at our center to guide surgical management and improve predictors of symptom improvement. We will utilize Bayesian neural networks to form classification schemas to better characterize these lesions anatomically and clinically. Publication History Article published online: 07 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207