ReviewSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Mastoid emissary vein, mastoid emissary foramen, and mastoid emissary canal: anatomy, variability, imaging, and clinical implications.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe mastoid emissary vein (MEV), mastoid emissary canal (MEC), and mastoid emissary foramen (MEF) are common but variably reported structures of the mastoid-posterior fossa region. Existing literature is fragmented across osteological, imaging-based, and clinical studies, with inconsistent prevalence and morphometric estimates, and with limited integration of anatomical variation into surgical and radiological decision-making. This SANRA-guided narrative review aimed to synthesise the anatomy, variability, imaging assessment, and clinical implications of MEV/MEC/MEF.
methodsThis SANRA-guided narrative review synthesised anatomical, imaging, and clinical studies identified through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar from database inception through March 2026. Eligible studies included dry-skull, cadaveric, CBCT, MDCT/HRCT, and case-based reports addressing morphology, morphometrics, prevalence, or clinical relevance. Owing to methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesised narratively.
resultsAcross osteological and imaging studies, MEF/MEC prevalence was generally high but heterogeneous, with frequent unilateral or bilateral multiplicity. Most canals/foramina were small, whereas a minority were markedly enlarged and potentially relevant to surgical bleeding, collateral venous drainage, or venous pulsatile tinnitus. Enlarged MEVs have been implicated in selected cases of venous pulsatile tinnitus, with reported treatments including conservative management, surgical clipping/ligation, and endovascular or percutaneous occlusion. In mastoid and posterior fossa surgery, prominent MEVs have been reported as potential sources of difficult venous bleeding. In paediatric Osia implantation, larger preoperative MEV calibre correlated with intraoperative bleeding.
conclusionsMEV/MEC/MEF should be assessed systematically on preoperative imaging, including presence, number, calibre, and relationships to surgical landmarks. Consistent reporting may reduce avoidable haemorrhagic and diagnostic complications.
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.