Use of anteriorly based pericranial flap in frontal sinus obliteration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In an era of endoscopic sinus surgery, frontal sinus obliteration continues to remain an important treatment option in chronic frontal sinus disease. Numerous avascular obliterative materials including fat, muscle, cancellous bone, and hydroxyapatite have been used in this procedure. In this article, we describe a vascularized anteriorly based pericranial flap to obliterate frontal sinus. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of patients referred to tertiary care hospital between 1996 and 2003. METHODS: Records of the patients who underwent this procedure were reviewed. Demographics, indications, and immediate and late complications were recorded. A phone questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction with the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients underwent frontal sinus obliteration with this technique. Mean follow-up was 40 months. None of the patients developed recurrent frontal sinusitis. All of the patients were pleased with the outcome. CONCLUSION: Pericranial flap is a highly vascularized flap that is easily harvested and is an effective and viable modality for obliterating frontal sinus. EBM RATING: C-4.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".