Postoperative Nasal Debridement after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Postoperative debridement is a controversial subject in the rhinology literature. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the effect of regular debridement versus no debridement on disease-specific outcomes and patient inconvenience. METHODS: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis who were to undergo basic sinus surgery (antrostomy, ethmoidectomy, and polypectomy) were randomized to either debridement (at postoperative weeks 2 and 4) or no debridement, and their outcomes were assessed at 4 weeks and at 6 months with the Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic Score (LKES), the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-21 (SNOT-21), a visual analog scale for postoperative pain, and a novel scoring system for postoperative inconvenience (Post-Operative Inconvenience Scale; POIS). All patients were instructed to use high-volume saline rinses twice daily. RESULTS: At 4 weeks after operation, there was no difference between the groups in regard to LKESs (control group, 2.1 of 20; debridement group, 2.4 of 20; p = 0.59) or SNOT scores (control group, 9.1; debridement group, 8.3; p = 0.47). The visual analog scale pain scores showed significance (control group, 19 mm; debridement group, 38 mm; p = 0.019), as did the POIS scores (control group, 18.3; debridement group, 6.1; p = 0.002). At 6 months after surgery, again no difference was seen between the groups on either LKESs or SNOT scores. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population, debridement after surgery did not affect disease-specific outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".