Mini-nasoseptal Flap for Recalcitrant Sphenoid Sinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recalcitrant sphenoid sinusitis occurs in 27% of patients undergoing revision functional endoscopic sinus surgery. One of the main causes of disease recurrence in the sphenoid is cicatricial scarring of the ostium. Highly inflammatory lesions such as fungal balls or chronic mucoceles can predispose patients to restenosis. We present a novel use of a modified nasoseptal flap to cover exposed bone after sphenoid wide sinusotomy to prevent restenosis and expedite healing. METHODS: A case series was performed. RESULTS: The mini-nasoseptal flap was successful in preventing sphenoid ostium restenosis in nine patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery for highly inflammatory sphenoid sinus pathology with a mean postoperative follow-up of 8.4 months (range, 2-21 months). Patients had a mean of 2.3 prior sinus surgeries (range, 0-7 surgeries). Most common indications for the flap in this series included long-standing fungal sinusitis or fungal balls (n = 6) with or without significant sphenoid wall osteoneogenesis (n = 6). There were no significant side effects related to flap harvest or inset. CONCLUSION: The mini-nasoseptal flap decreases the risk of restenosis after sphenoid sinusotomy by preventing circumferential cicatricial scarring and offers an effective surgical option on the spectrum of sphenoid surgical interventions in select patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".