ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
Surgery of the Anterior Infratemporal Fossa (AITF) and the Pterygopalatine Fossa (PPF) lesions: critical assessment of operative exposure, loss of functioning tissue and morbidity between Extradural Subtemporal Infratemporal Approach (ESITA) and Endonasal Endoscopic Transmaxillary Transpterygoid Approach (EEMP).
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgery of the anterior infratemporal fossa (AITF) and pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) is technically demanding. The Extradural Subtemporal Infratemporal Approach (ESITA) and the Endonasal Endoscopic Transmaxillary Transpterygoid (EEMP) Approach are established routes for accessing these regions. This study quantitatively compares the surgical exposure, surgical freedom, angles of attack, and clinical outcomes achieved with these approaches.
methodsESITA and EEMP were performed on ten sides of five cadaveric heads. Resection volumes were calculated using 3D reconstructions from thin-slice CT scans obtained before and after dissection. Additional measurements-including exposure length, surgical freedom, and angles of attack-were obtained with a neuronavigation system. A retrospective review of twenty-two clinical cases was also conducted to evaluate outcomes.
resultsESITA provided a greater resection volume for the AITF than EEMP (92% vs 78.7%, p = 0.043), while EEMP achieved a larger resection volume for the PPF (100% vs 73.1%, p = 0.043). EEMP offered superior vertical exposure to the PPF, whereas both approaches provided comparable AITF exposure. ESITA demonstrated wider surgical freedom and more favorable angles of attack. Clinically, GTR and NTR was achieved in 56% of transcranial, 88% of endoscopic, and 60% of combined cases. Minor complications such as nasal crusting and transient facial numbness occurred mainly in the endoscopic group, while one patient experienced meningitis after transcranial surgery and another developed visual impairment following embolization.
conclusionsESITA is advantageous for AITF lesions, while EEMP is better suited for PPF pathology. ESITA also provides greater surgical maneuverability compared to EEMP.
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.