↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopically-assisted transmastoid approach to the geniculate ganglion and labyrinthine facial nerve

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endoscopically-assisted transmastoid approach to the geniculate ganglion and labyrinthine facial nerve
Published in
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40463-017-0231-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Jufas, Manohar Bance

Abstract

Endoscopic transcanal approaches to the facial nerve allow excellent exposure of the tympanic facial nerve. This approach becomes limited when access is required to the more proximal geniculate ganglion and labyrinthine portion of the facial nerve. The aim of this report was to determine the feasibility of a transmastoid endoscopically assisted approach to the geniculate ganglion and labyrinthine facial nerve. This is an endoscopic cadaveric dissection and video review at a university anatomical laboratory. A total of 12 endoscopic cadaveric dissections were performed. A cortical mastoidectomy and perilabyrinthine air cell removal was performed using an operating microscope. Beyond this, dissection was performed with an endoscope. In all dissections, an endoscopically assisted transmastoid approach allowed complete access to the geniculate ganglion, and at least 1.5 mm of the distal labyrinthine facial nerve. Further transcrusal drilling through the anterior crus of the superior semicircular canal allowed access to the entire labyrinthine facial nerve. The entire geniculate ganglion and labyrinthine facial nerve is difficult to access with microscopic techniques. Adding endoscopic visualization allows for complete visualization of the geniculate ganglion. Clinical reports will further strengthen these preliminary cadaveric results.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,350,971
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#320
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,019
of 325,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.