Randomized, Controlled, Study of Absorbable Nasal Packing on Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Rhinosinusitis with Polyposis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish the effect of absorbable dressing on postoperative discomfort and mucosal healing after sinus surgery. A prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded study was performed. METHODS: Patients 18-80 years old undergoing sinus surgery were enrolled in the study. Each patient's ethmoid cavities were randomized to receive either absorbable dressing or the standard nonabsorbable sinus packs. Therefore, patients served as their own control. Preoperative as a CT scan and intraoperative endoscopic photographs were used for staging within the Lund-Mackay system. The procedure was performed as the indicated by extent of disease. The remaining absorbable dressing was removed at 2 weeks by endoscopic suctioning in the clinic. Patients completed questionnaires regarding sinus symptoms and discomfort. Postoperative endoscopic appearance was graded by a single rhinologist. Length of follow-up was 6 months. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were randomized. There were no significant adverse events in either group. Patients' symptom scores improved at 2 weeks and at 1 and 3 months when compared with preoperation. Both groups had similar preoperative grade of disease and extent of surgery. Endoscopic appearance of the absorbable cavity showed a trend toward improvement at 2 weeks (p < 0.05). Endoscopic appearance showed a similar trend toward improvement at 1, 3, and 6 months in the absorbable group (NS). Twenty-seven patients had a strong preference for a particular nasal packing of which 16 of 27 (59.3%) patients preferred the absorbable dressing. CONCLUSION: The absorbable dressing showed a trend toward positive effect on early wound healing and in late results. Strong patient preference was indicated for the absorbable dressing over standard sponges.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".