Neurosurgery · 1998
Analytical evaluation of complex anterior approaches to the cranial base: an anatomic study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ammirati M, Bernardo A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the anatomic areas of the cranial base exposed by different complex anterior approaches.
METHODS: Using 20 embalmed cadaveric heads, we executed five different anterior approaches, i.e., Le Fort 1 approach with splitting or down-fracturing of the hard palate, extended maxillectomy, median mandibulotomy with glossotomy, and mandibular swing transcervical approach. Each approach was performed a minimum of three times. The areas of the intra- and extracranial cranial base exposed by each approach were analytically examined by using a numerical grading system to assess the exposure of major anatomic and neurovascular structures.
RESULTS: Good exposure of the midline compartment of the cranial base was provided by the median mandibulotomy with glossotomy and by the Le Fort 1 approach with splitting of the hard palate, whereas the mandibular swing transcervical and extended maxillectomy approaches provided good exposure of the lateral compartment of the cranial base.
CONCLUSION: Use of the numerical grading system allowed quantification of the exposure afforded by each approach, with respect to the different compartments (midline and lateral) of the intra- and extracranial cranial base, highlighting the differences among the approaches examined.
METHODS: Using 20 embalmed cadaveric heads, we executed five different anterior approaches, i.e., Le Fort 1 approach with splitting or down-fracturing of the hard palate, extended maxillectomy, median mandibulotomy with glossotomy, and mandibular swing transcervical approach. Each approach was performed a minimum of three times. The areas of the intra- and extracranial cranial base exposed by each approach were analytically examined by using a numerical grading system to assess the exposure of major anatomic and neurovascular structures.
RESULTS: Good exposure of the midline compartment of the cranial base was provided by the median mandibulotomy with glossotomy and by the Le Fort 1 approach with splitting of the hard palate, whereas the mandibular swing transcervical and extended maxillectomy approaches provided good exposure of the lateral compartment of the cranial base.
CONCLUSION: Use of the numerical grading system allowed quantification of the exposure afforded by each approach, with respect to the different compartments (midline and lateral) of the intra- and extracranial cranial base, highlighting the differences among the approaches examined.