Degloving of the inferior turbinates: pilot study to assess the effectiveness of a new technique in turbinate reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of 'degloving' of the inferior turbinate is described. This prospective study reports on the effectiveness of the technique in 37 patients with nasal obstruction due to inferior turbinate hypertrophy. Both objective and subjective measurements of nasal patency were made pre-operatively, and repeated at six weeks, six months and two years post-operatively using nasal inspiratory peak flow rates, saccharin clearance time and an end referenced visual analogue scale to record nasal symptoms. There was a significant improvement in the peak inspiratory flow at six weeks (96.4 to 151.2 l/min) and at six months (148.4 l/min), which was sustained at two years (117.1 l/min, p<0.001). There was an overall improvement in patient satisfaction with nasal symptoms (23.4 to 76.7, 76.8 and 66.8 at six weeks, six months and two years, p<0.001) and a decrease in the sensation of nasal obstruction (71.9 to 21.5, 32.9 and 29.8, p<0.001), which was also sustained. Rhinorrhoea was reduced, and sense of smell increased across the group, but the improvements did not reach statistical significance. The results for postnasal drip and saccharin clearance did not show a significant change over the period of the study. There were no haemorrhagic complications in the group studied. This pilot study demonstrates a new surgical technique for reduction of the inferior turbinates, that yields significant improvement in nasal obstruction, an acceptably low complication rate and is well tolerated by patients. A randomized controlled trial is being planned.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".