Transcaruncular Approach With Orbital Protection for Resection of Sinonasal Lesions: How I do it
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundMinimally invasive techniques for the resection of sinonasal masses have become increasingly important over the past few decades. Sinonasal disease involving the lamina papyracea remains difficult to manage given the risk of injury to critical orbital structures and hemorrhage from nearby vessels.ObjectiveDetail the transcaruncular approach with orbital protection for the resection of benign and malignant sinonasal pathologies.MethodsDescription of surgical technique and presentation of 2 representative cases that were successfully managed with this surgical technique.ResultsThe transcaruncular approach involves incising the lateral 1/3 of the caruncle in a vertical plane between the upper and lower puncta. Dissection is then carried through the retrocaruncular fascia posterior to Horner's muscle to the posterior lacrimal crest along the medial orbital wall. Dissection can then be performed in a subperiosteal or supraperiosteal plane with subsequent ligation of the anterior ethmoidal artery. Once dissected, a nylon sheet used for orbital reconstruction and colored orbital shield can then be placed to aid in protection and visualization or orbital contents during endonasal tumor resection.ConclusionThe transcaruncular approach with orbital protection provides intraoperative protection of the orbital contents, allowing for safer removal of the mass irrespective of integrity of the lamina papyracea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".