Revision Rates after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Recurrence Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis is often refractory to medical and surgical management, especially in patients with asthma and aspirin intolerance. We used a contemporary database to investigate recurrence and revision surgery rates following endoscopic sinus surgery. METHODS: We performed a cohort study using a survival analysis technique. Records were reviewed of 549 patients with nasal polyposis who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery over a 10-year period. The main outcome measure was disease-free and surgery-free survival following endoscopic sinus surgery, investigated with Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Patients with Samter's triad were significantly more likely to have a recurrence and undergo a second surgery following recurrence (risk-odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.2; p < 0.01) than were patients without asthma or with only asthma from the triad. The presence of initial frontal sinus disease also increased the likelihood of revision surgery (risk-odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 1.8; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use survival analysis to document revision surgery rates following endoscopic sinus surgery. Revision surgery occurs at a high rate, especially in patients with asthma, Samter's triad, or frontal sinus disease. Patients should routinely be informed during clinical consultations about the likelihood of recurrence. Early intervention for frontal sinus disease may be considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".