Randomized controlled trial: hybrid technique using balloon dilation of the frontal sinus drainage pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to evaluate frontal sinus ostial patency following balloon dilation with the Ventera Sinus Dilation System, compared with frontal sinusotomy (Draf 2a); and (2) to compare mean blood loss and mean surgical time for frontal sinusotomy using balloon dilation compared with traditional surgical methods. METHODS: A single blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study was performed at St. Paul's Sinus Center, Vancouver, a tertiary referral rhinology center. Thirty patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) were randomized to a hybrid approach with exposure of the frontal recess using standard instrumentation and then balloon dilation of 1 frontal sinus drainage pathway and traditional frontal sinusotomy for the opposite side. Blood loss and surgical time for opening the frontal sinus drainage pathway was recorded for each side. Patients acted as their own controls. Ostial patency and size were assessed 5 weeks and 3 months postoperatively using endoscopy. Ostial patency was also recorded at 1 year following surgery. RESULTS: All frontal sinus ostia in both groups (n = 30) were successfully opened and were patent with both techniques 3 months postoperatively. All frontal sinus ostia assessed at 1 year (73%) remained patent and none required revision frontal surgery. Balloon dilation showed a mean surgical time of 655 seconds compared to 898 seconds for traditional FESS (p = 0.03). Mean blood loss was less with balloon dilation (58 mL vs 91 mL; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: A hybrid balloon technique successfully dilates the frontal sinus drainage pathway with reduced blood loss. Also, short-term patency appears to be comparable to traditional frontal sinusotomy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".