ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
What is the optimum incision for superficial temporal artery biopsy? An anatomical study using body donors.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSuperficial temporal artery (STA) biopsy remains an important diagnostic investigation for giant cell (temporal) arteritis. Incisions should optimise STA exposure while avoiding the temporal branch of the facial nerve. However, the widely used Gillies incision, a 2 cm temporal incision 2.5 cm anterior and superior to the auricular helix within the hairline, has been shown to be inconsistent for STA access.
methodsIn this study of 20 hemifaces from 10 body donors (mean age 87.1; range 75-93; n = 3 females), STA branches were mapped using a Cartesian grid referenced to the anterior crus-lateral canthus axis. Four 2 cm incisions were modelled: Gillies, pre-auricular, and two novel algorithmically optimised incisions targeting frontal and parietal branches. Access was defined as incision-to-vessel distance of ≤ 0.5 cm or ≤ 1.0 cm. All donors had provided written consent for anatomical research under the Human Tissue Act 2004.
resultsThe Gillies incision accessed the frontal branch in ≤ 1.0 cm in 11/20 (55%) and ≤ 0.5 cm in 3/20 (15%); parietal access was ≤ 1.0 cm in 8/19 (42%) and ≤ 0.5 cm in 4/19 (21%). Pre-auricular incision improved access: ≤ 1.0 cm for frontal 13/20 (65%) and parietal 18/19 (94.7%) branches. Optimised frontal and parietal incisions achieved ≤ 1.0 cm access in 19/20 (95%) and 18/19 (94.7%) respectively.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the Gillies incision may not be a reliable approach for accessing the frontal or parietal branches of the STA. Pre-auricular and algorithmically optimised frontal and parietal incisions achieved high, branch-specific access but require clinical validation.
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.