Triamcinolone‐impregnated nasal dressing following endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the impact of steroid-impregnated absorbable nasal dressing on wound healing and surgical outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Chronic rhinosinusitis patients with polyposis who were to undergo bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery were recruited and randomized to receive triamcinolone-impregnated bioresorbable dressing (Nasopore; Stryker Canada, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) in one nasal cavity and saline-impregnated dressing contralaterally. Postoperative healing assessments of edema, crusting, secretions, and scarring were done at postoperative days 7, 14, 28 and at 3 and 6 months using validated Lund-Kennedy and Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scores. RESULTS: Analysis of 19 enrolled patients having completed observation shows no significant difference between the cavity scores preoperatively using both the POSE and Lund-Kennedy scores. There was, however, a statistically significant difference at day 7 and 14 in both the Lund-Kennedy (P = .04 and P = .03, respectively) and POSE scores (P = .03 and P = .001, respectively) for the treatment and control groups, and a significant difference was also detected between the groups at 3- and 6-month observations (Lund-Kennedy, P = .007 and P = .02, respectively; POSE, P = .049 and P = .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis suggests a significant improvement in early postoperative healing in nasal cavities receiving triamcinolone-impregnated absorbable nasal packing following ESS and is also associated with improved healing up to 6 months postoperatively.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".