MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407250385 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1803936

Use of Jugular Venous Pressure to Optimize Outcomes of Vestibular Schwannoma Resection: A Review of the Literature and Proof of Concept

2025· review· en· W4407250385 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Brakel, Jessica Wang, Jeremy Kam, Henrik Huttunen, Bali Dhaliwal, Jon McEwen, Brian D. Westerberg, Serge Makarenko, Ryojo Akagami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVestibular systemSchwannomaProof of conceptMedicineResectionVenous pressureRadiologySurgeryComputer scienceBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Surgical resection of vestibular schwannoma (VS) is often curative if gross total resection is achieved, however, it is a delicate procedure with high risk to the facial nerve. With retrosigmoid approach for resection, the head is positioned to maximize lateral head rotation and neck flexion to optimize the surgical field. However, this may inadvertently occlude cerebral venous drainage, elevating intracranial pressure (ICP) and increasing intraoperative bleeding. Methods: We review relevant literature regarding the effects of head rotation and neck flexion on internal jugular vein (IJV) occlusion and ICP, and highlight the notion that head rotation and flexion may occlude the ipsilateral IJV, increasing ICP. Subsequently, we propose a novel technique using continuous, real-time monitoring of jugular bulb pressure (JBP) to detect obstructions in jugular venous flow and guide optimal head positioning prior to VS resection. Results: As proof of concept, we present a single-patient case in which JBP monitoring was employed to optimize head positioning prior to a VS resection, which shows a significant reduction in JBP compared with traditional positioning. Conclusion: This innovative approach offers promise in enhancing the safety and efficacy of intracranial surgery for VS and potentially other neurosurgical procedures. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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