The efficacy and safety of an office‐based polypectomy with a vacuum‐powered microdebrider
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The waiting time for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) in the Canadian public healthcare system can be lengthy. Many such patients have significant nasal obstruction resulting in a poor quality of life. A simple and safe office-based polypectomy device to debulk nasal polyps allows immediate alleviation of nasal obstruction and better access for topical medications. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient tolerability of a vacuum-powered microdebrider in the outpatient clinic setting. METHODS: The clinical charts of patients with CRSwNP who underwent office polypectomy with a vacuum-powered microdebrider between May 2012 and February 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. These patients were either awaiting surgery or had recurrent polyposis postsurgery that was amenable to office polypectomy. Previously completed procedural and clinical outcomes questionnaires by the patients and surgeon were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients underwent office polypectomy in this case series. Fifty-nine procedures (87%) were successfully completed. Failed complete polyp resections were due to fibrous polyps (n = 7; 10%), device failure (n = 1; 1.5%), and obstruction from a deviated nasal septum (n = 1; 1.5%). There was a 43% improvement in nasal obstruction score and significant reduction in polyp grade postpolypectomy. Majority of patients (n = 66; 97%) reported a comfort level of "fair" to "excellent." Bleeding was "light" in 61 cases (90%). There were no complications encountered. CONCLUSION: The vacuum-powered microdebrider is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated instrument to resect nonfibrous nasal polyps in the outpatient setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".