Patient Quality of Life Improvements with and without Computer Assistance in Sinus Surgery: Outcomes Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis affects millions of North Americans and has been increasing annually since 1991. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) done with the use of computer assistance (CASS) and without the use of computer assistance on patient quality of life. As of this writing, there is no published study that measures the difference in patient quality of life with and without image guidance in endoscopic sinus surgery. METHODS: A nonrandomized prospective study was performed on 95 patients. A 31-item quality of life (Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measures Form [RSOM-31]) questionnaire was administered to patients prior to surgery and 6 months following surgery during a 3-year enrollment period. Patients assessed both rhinologic and nonrhinologic symptoms using a statistically validated scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed using both equal and unequal variance sample t-tests when appropriate. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement in mean score analysis between preoperative and postoperative results for all symptom subgroups was reported when the entire study population was included. When the improvement in quality of life was compared between the CASS and FESS surgical groups, the CASS group demonstrated an overall greater improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSION: Quality of life restrictions in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were greatest in the areas of nasal symptoms and sleep deprivation, which were significantly improved by endoscopic sinus surgery. Although the long-term effect of CASS as measured by patient quality of life remains relatively unknown, there appears to be a significant trend indicating greater quality of life improvement in the short- term over non-computer-assisted FESS techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".