4.1 Article

The endoscopic anatomy of the cochlear hook region and fustis: surgical implications

期刊

ACTA OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGICA ITALICA
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 353-357

出版社

PACINI EDITORE
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-2388

关键词

Cochlear hook region; Endoscopic ear surgery; Cochlear implant; Lateral skull base surgery; Fustis; Cholesteatoma; Vestibular schwannoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cochlear hook region can be considered as the interface between the middle and inner ear. The identification of surgically-relevant endoscopic landmarks of this anatomical entity and assessment of their clinical value is still lacking in the literature. Procedures like cholesteatoma surgery and minimal invasive endoscopic approaches to the lateral skull base may particularly benefit from these considerations. We hypothesize that the spatial orientation of anatomical landmarks in the cochlear hook can be expressed in angles and are reproducibly identifiable by transcanal otoendoscopy. Therefore, endoscopic dissection of the cochlear hook region was performed in 32 temporal bone specimens. Topographic anatomy was documented and analysed. We performed computed tomography of 28 specimens to assess the region in three-dimensional reconstructions. The mean angle between the round window and the basal scala tympani was assessed 25.9 degrees in endoscopic and 28.2 degrees in three-dimensionally reconstructed models. The fustis was recognised as a reliable landmark for the basal turn. A mean angle of 155.4 degrees to the basal scala tympani was assessed. A slight bulging without obstruction of the basal turn was observed in 5 cases. The utility of the revealed anatomical details was assessed in minimal invasive endoscopic lateral skull base approaches. In conclusion, we described the angles between anatomical landmarks of the cochlear hook region. Moreover, the angle as recorded through an endoscope was found to be reliable compared to three-dimensional reconstructions from computed tomography.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据