Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in the Paediatric Population: Outcome of a Conservative Approach to Postoperative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) has become a widely used and effective tool in treating chronic sinusitis refractory to medical therapy. Reported success rates, defined mainly on the basis of improvement of preoperative symptoms, have been encouraging and ranged between 71 and 93%. However, in most of these studies, a second-look endoscopy under general anaesthesia was performed 2 to 3 weeks following the initial surgery in order to débride and clean the operative site. In this study, we present the outcome of FESS in our centre, where a second-look endoscopy was never performed. A retrospective study on all of the patients operated on between May 1987 and May 1997 was undertaken. All 35 patients had symptoms of sinusitis and had received initial medical therapy for at least 2 months. Only those who did not improve were considered candidates for surgery. Prior to the operation, all patients had computed tomography scan of the sinuses to document the extent of their disease. Eleven patients (31%) had asthma, 3 patients had cystic fibrosis, 1 had leukemia, 1 had immotile cilia, and 1 had Kartagener's syndrome. The period of follow-up ranged between 3 months and 5 years. Success was determined by resolution or improvement of the preoperative symptoms as assessed during their latest follow-up visit. Our data show an overall success rate of 74%. More than half of the patients (56%) who had recurrence of symptoms had an underlying systemic condition (cystic fibrosis, leukemia, or ciliary dyskinesia); however, these patients showed an initial improvement during the first few months following FESS. Also, five patients (14%) required revision FESS within 1 to 3 years following their initial surgery; four of those patients (80%) had an underlying systemic condition. Based on these results, we conclude that second-look endoscopy is of no benefit following routine FESS since our success rates are comparable to those reported in the literature.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".