World neurosurgery · 2026
Temporalis Muscle Dissection Techniques in the Pterional Approach: Quantitative Impact on Operative Corridor and Surgical Freedom.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hasimoglu Siavash, Tekneci Ozan, Eray Halit Anıl, Orhan Ozgur, Ozpiskin Omer Mert, Bayatli Eyup, Özgüral Onur, Dogan Ihsan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 3 temporalis muscle dissection techniques-myocutaneous (MC), interfascial (IF), and subfascial (SF)-on surgical freedom during the pterional approach.
METHODS: Eight cadaveric heads were dissected bilaterally (16 sides). The MC, IF, and SF techniques were compared in terms of temporal lobe surface area, surgical freedom volume, and horizontal and vertical angles of attack at 8 predefined target points. Measurements were obtained using Cartesian coordinates acquired with a frameless stereotactic navigation system and analyzed using mathematical modeling.
RESULTS: The mean temporal lobe surface areas were 14 ± 1 cm2, 18 ± 1 cm2, and 20 ± 1 cm2 for the MC, IF, and SF techniques, respectively. Both IF and SF produced significantly greater temporal lobe exposure than MC (P < 0.001), with SF exceeding IF (mean difference: 2.2 ± 0.3 cm2, P < 0.001). The SF technique also allowed greater posteroinferior mobilization of the temporalis muscle (1 ± 0.2 cm) compared with the IF technique. The MC technique consistently demonstrated the lowest surgical freedom volumes and the narrowest horizontal and vertical angles of attack at the predefined target points (P < 0.05). Compared with IF, the SF technique provided greater surgical freedom volumes and wider horizontal angles of attack across all target points (P < 0.05), whereas vertical angles did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: SF temporalis muscle dissection was associated with greater surgical freedom and temporal lobe exposure during the pterional approach and may be advantageous when wider operative corridors are required.
METHODS: Eight cadaveric heads were dissected bilaterally (16 sides). The MC, IF, and SF techniques were compared in terms of temporal lobe surface area, surgical freedom volume, and horizontal and vertical angles of attack at 8 predefined target points. Measurements were obtained using Cartesian coordinates acquired with a frameless stereotactic navigation system and analyzed using mathematical modeling.
RESULTS: The mean temporal lobe surface areas were 14 ± 1 cm2, 18 ± 1 cm2, and 20 ± 1 cm2 for the MC, IF, and SF techniques, respectively. Both IF and SF produced significantly greater temporal lobe exposure than MC (P < 0.001), with SF exceeding IF (mean difference: 2.2 ± 0.3 cm2, P < 0.001). The SF technique also allowed greater posteroinferior mobilization of the temporalis muscle (1 ± 0.2 cm) compared with the IF technique. The MC technique consistently demonstrated the lowest surgical freedom volumes and the narrowest horizontal and vertical angles of attack at the predefined target points (P < 0.05). Compared with IF, the SF technique provided greater surgical freedom volumes and wider horizontal angles of attack across all target points (P < 0.05), whereas vertical angles did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: SF temporalis muscle dissection was associated with greater surgical freedom and temporal lobe exposure during the pterional approach and may be advantageous when wider operative corridors are required.