2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.02.114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microsurgical Anatomy Review of Bifrontal Limited Transbasal Approach – Quantitative and Anatomy Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Once the dura is exposed, the superior sagittal sinus can be sec tioned in the anterior portion (Figure 2C,D). This extension allows more extradural expo sure of the anterior cranial base and opens to the nasal cavity [19].…”
Section: Bifrontal/transbasal Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Once the dura is exposed, the superior sagittal sinus can be sec tioned in the anterior portion (Figure 2C,D). This extension allows more extradural expo sure of the anterior cranial base and opens to the nasal cavity [19].…”
Section: Bifrontal/transbasal Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The standard bifrontal, frontomedian, and anterior interhemispheric approaches are also anatomically well-studied classic neurosurgical approaches. 31 32 The areas of exposure on the anterior fossa and central skull base through these latter approaches are strongly limited compared with the pterional and supraorbital approaches. Especially the anterior interhemispheric approach causes significantly lower retraction of the olfactory bulbs compared with the lateral, medial, and median subfrontal routes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A further factor could be our recent observation that during forced retraction of the frontal lobe the olfactory bulb may be significantly dislocated from the olfactory fossa but without consecutive transection of the fila olfactoria (Fig 4B). The standard bifrontal, frontomedian and anterior interhemispheric approaches are also anatomically well-studied classic neurosurgical approaches 33,34 . The area of exposures on the anterior fossa and central skull base through these latter approaches is strongly limited compared to the pterional and supraorbital approaches.…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Congenital malformations of the maxillofacial area rank third among other congenital anomalies. 70% of them are congenital nonunion of the upper lip and palate, and 30% -craniofacial dysostosis [15,18]. The most diverse are congenital malformations of the upper and lower jaws, which are expressed in deviations from the norm of their size, shape, position of the jaws and changes in syntopia (agnathia, micro-and macrognathia, prognathia, nonunion of the upper jaw and palate) [4,10,13,20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%