Impact of postoperative endoscopy upon clinical outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), endoscopy is used to gauge surgical success and clinical outcomes. Prior studies have not examined this topic prospectively using validated outcome metrics across multiple institutions. METHODS: A multi-institutional, prospective study of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who underwent ESS completed the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), missed productivity, and medication usage questionnaires 6 months postoperatively. Lund-Kennedy endoscopy scoring (LKES) was performed with reviewers blinded to patient-reported data. A control cohort of non-CRS patients was recruited for comparison. RESULTS: Complete data was available on 183 CRS patients and 48 non-CRS control patients. Approximately 50% of patients achieve perfect or near perfect endoscopy (LKES 0 to 2) after ESS. Postoperative endoscopy correlated with total SNOT-22 scores (r = 0.278, p < 0.001), with the strongest correlations to rhinologic and extranasal subdomains in the nasal polyp cohort. Improved postoperative endoscopy was associated with decreased antibiotic and oral steroid usage, but had little association with missed productivity. Among patients who achieved near perfect postoperative endoscopy, those with nasal polyps had SNOT-22 scores that were similar to non-CRS control patients (mean SNOT-22 scores 17.7 and 16.3, respectively). However, CRS patients without nasal polyps remained more symptomatic than non-CRS controls and CRS with nasal polyps patients despite nearly perfect endoscopy (mean SNOT-22 score 21.6). CONCLUSION: Postoperative endoscopy correlates with SNOT-22 and medication usage in CRS patients. Polyp patients who achieve near perfect endoscopy have similar symptoms to healthy controls; however, nonpolyp patients with near perfect endoscopy still have rhinologic and extranasal symptoms that are worse than healthy controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".