ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Comparison between olfactory bulb and olfactory tract implantations through an endoscopic supraorbital keyhole approach: a cadaveric study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSince the COVID-19 pandemic, olfactory loss has been recognized as a highly prevalent condition that greatly impacts the quality of life. Similar to other sensory implants, the idea of an olfactory implant has emerged. Evidence indicates that electrical stimulation of specific olfactory structures can evoke smell sensations. However, debates on the most appropriate anatomical target and surgical technique for implantation are still ongoing. By extrapolating data from other surgical indications, transcranial approaches appear to carry a lower risk of cerebrospinal fluid leakage and infection compared with endoscopic endonasal routes. The aim of this study was to compare two electrode placements (dorsal olfactory bulb and ventral olfactory tract) through a supraorbital keyhole craniotomy in human cadavers.
methodFour fresh human cadavers were dissected in a staged manner. Supraorbital keyhole craniotomy was performed through an eyebrow incision and the frontal lobe was slightly retracted to allow angled (30°) endoscope insertion. An auditory brainstem implant (ABI) from MED-EL was used for electrode placement.
resultsEndoscopic placement of the electrode on the dorsal side of the olfactory bulb was achieved after orbital roof drilling in all cases, but was not stable. On the contrary, endoscopic placement of an electrode under the olfactory tract was easily achieved without drilling and the electrode was stable between the olfactory tract and the planum sphenoidale, behind the olfactory bulb.
conclusionVentral olfactory tract implantation posterior to the olfactory bulb using an ABI is straightforward and is associated with satisfactory electrode stability. Such a procedure could be used for clinical pilot studies evaluating the effects of various stimulation protocols on the olfactory tract in patients with long-lasting olfactory loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.