Role of nasal packing in surgical outcome for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To analyze the differences between biodegradable and nondegradable nasal dressings with regard to their effects on wound healing in the short and medium term and on surgical outcomes in the long term, after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, partly blinded, controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 56 patients undergoing bilateral ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis were enrolled and randomized to receive biodegradable (Nasopore; Stryker, Hamilton, ON, Canada) on one side and nondegradable packing (Merocel; Medtronic Xomed, Minneapolis, MN) on the opposite side. Postoperative morbidities (pain, bleeding, facial edema, nasal blockage) related to dressings were assessed on postoperative day 6. Wound healing (edema, crusting, secretions, synechia, granulation tissue formation, and percentage re-epithelialization) were evaluated at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months using modified Lund-Kennedy scores. Long-term assessment at 12 months was done using validated Lund-Kennedy scores. RESULTS: Morbidities related to nondegradable packing were significantly higher than with degradable packing (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P<.01). Pain, bleeding, nasal blockage, and facial edema were significantly less with absorbable packing. No statistically significant difference was found between sinonasal cavities packed with biodegradable or nondegradable materials with regard to healing scores and percentage of re-epithelialization at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and surgical outcomes at 1 year (P>.05). However, healing at 6 months was correlated with the preoperative Lund-Mackay radiology and surgery scores (Spearman's rho correlation test, P<.05 and P<.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: No significant healing or surgical outcome differences were found between biodegradable and nondegradable packing. However pain, bleeding, nasal blockage, and facial edema were lower with biodegradable packing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".