ArticleAnatomical science international2024
Anatomical measurements of trigeminal ganglion: a cadaver study.
Article in Anatomical science international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is difficult to obtain specific information regarding the trigeminal ganglion (TG), especially pediatric TG. The aim of present study was to determine the parameters of the TG and assist in the neuroablative treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Thirty-seven sides of cadaver heads that had undergone gross anatomical examination were included, with 29 sides of adults and 8 sides of infants. The distance and angles were measured among 12 points, with nine points adjacent to the TG and three points on the foramen ovale (FO). The three points on FO were represented as three different surgical approaches for TN: posterior FO approach (PFO), lateral FO approach (LFO), and anterior FO approach (AFO). A high similarity was found in pediatric TG. No statistical difference was detected in either the distance or the angles between the 12 points. Statistical difference was found in adult heads in some of the distances, which included PFO to point 5 (17.97 ± 3.35 mm in the left and 15.52 ± 2.28 mm in the right; p = 0.03) and LFO to point 5 and point 8. Moreover, the angle for PFO to point 5 showed a statistically significant difference (60.10 ± 14.02 in the left and 46.63 ± 10.48 in the right; p = 0.01). These findings revealed that surgical neuroablation for patients with TN should be performed more carefully when the PFO or LFO approach is adopted, with a precise preoperative evaluation to avoid corneal complications. Two safety radiofrequency rhizotomy points are also presented to deal with two different kinds of TN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37603209What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.