To demonstrate anatomic relationships pertinent to the endoscopic multiport approach to the infratemporal fossa (ITF). Discuss advantages and limitations of each individual approach.
Cadaveric study.
Endoscopic and endoscopic-assisted endonasal transpterygoid, sublabial transmaxillary, endoscopic transorbital, and endoscopic transoral approaches to accessing the ITF were completed in five silicone-injected fresh cadaveric specimens (10 sides) with the assistance of 0, 30, and 450 rods-lens endoscopes. Image guidance was used to confirm and document the anatomical relationships encountered in each approach.
The endonasal endoscopic transpterygoid approach provides better visualization and more direct exposure to median structures. Endoscopic-assisted sublabial transmaxillary approach enhances the field of exposure, angle of attack, and ease of instrumentation to the lateral part of the ITF. Endoscopic-assisted transorbital approach via the inferior orbital fissure provided cephalic and anterior access. Endoscopic-assisted transoral approach complements the access to lesions extending inferior to the hard palate or far lateral to the mandibular condyle.
A combination of minimal access infratemporal approaches can provide adequate exposure of the entire ITF while avoiding some of the morbidity associated with open approaches.
NA Laryngoscope, 2023.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2023.
All research outputs
#14,578,292
of 23,351,247 outputs
Outputs from The Laryngoscope
#3,069
of 6,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,430
of 363,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Laryngoscope
#23
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,351,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
