Assessment of Symptomatic Patients after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery with Special Reference to the Frontal Sinus: Comparative Radiologic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To reveal the role of potential risk factors in frontal recess dissection (FRD), middle turbinate resection (MTR), sinonasal polyposis, and extension of disease in postoperative frontal sinus opacification by determining radiologic changes after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in symptomatic cases using computed tomography (CT). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from symptomatic patients after ESS. METHODS: Postoperative CT scans were taken in all symptomatic patients during their least symptomatic period or after maximal medical therapy. The radiologic findings of each sinus were compared, and the outcome of ESS was statistically evaluated. Furthermore, FRD, MTR, sinonasal polyposis, and extension of disease were analyzed for postoperative frontal sinus opacification. RESULTS: In our study, 101 sinuses of 61 symptomatic patients were examined. A significant improvement in opacification in all sinuses was detected postoperatively. Multivariate analysis of all potential risk factors revealed that postoperative frontal sinus opacification was affected only by sinonasal polyposis (odds ratio [OR] 3.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-10.58) and extension of disease (OR 16.93; 95% CI 4.33-66.23). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that surgical procedures such as FRD and/or MTR may not directly affect postoperative frontal sinus opacification. On the contrary, sinonasal polyposis and extension of disease seemed to be the main risk factors of this issue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".